Inl. J. Educaiitmullleielopmrni. Vol.3, No. I,pp.47-i9. 1983Printed in Circai Britain

O73K-OW S3 S.1.<K) •

RURAL PRIMARY SCHOOL TEACHERS AS CHANGE AGENTS IN THETHIRD WORLD: THREE CASE STUDIES

KEITH WATSON

Reading University School of Education, London Road, Reading RG1 5AQ, UK

Abstract — During the past two decades considerable interest has been shown in the use ofprimary school teachers as change agents — rural animaieurs — in the rural areas of ihe ThirdWorld. The concept is not new. Its origins certainly go back to British colonial administration inAfrica, but it has been increasingly advocated as a solution to the pressing problems of ruralunderdevelopment, illiteracy and urban migration.

This paper examines the theoretical basis of the concept both historically and in more recentwritings; examines three national case studies, from Thailand, Iran and Cameroon; and fromthese seeks to draw general propositions that might have a wider validity.

INTRODUCTION

It has been suggested that in spite of, orperhaps because of, various options and dilem-mas facing Third World governments there is agrowing sense of realism, even healthy scep-ticism, about the role education has to play innational development (Husen, 1979; Simmons,1980; Weiler, 1978). Nevertheless, there is onerather intense and ongoing educational debatethat has developed during the past two decadesbetween idealists and realists, optimists andsceptics, over the role that should be accordedto primary school teachers in the rural areas ofmany developing countries. Realists argue thatrural teachers should be trained to perform bet-ter their task of transmitting knowledge in thetraditional classroom setting before any at-tempt is made to prepare them for a widersocial and educational role in the rural com-munity. The idealists argue that becauseteachers are 'educated' and have a knowledgeof literacy and numeracy and because (in-variably) they are government agents, they areideal persons to undertake leadership roles inrural areas of developing countries as 'ruralanimateurs'• As the World Bank Sector paperon Education in 1974 pointedly noted, 'teacherscan also be trained and used as multipurposeagents, e.g. managing cooperatives and doingaccounting' (World Bank, 1974). That no such

mention of teachers as 'multi-purpose agents' ismade in the 1980 Sector Paper on Educationmay be an oversight or it may be indicative of agrowing sense of official international disillu-sionment about the extended role accorded tothe rural teacher. That this disillusionment isfar from universal can be seen from the factthat an increasing number of Third Worldgovernments believe that the teacher has a roleto play in national development beyond that ofbeing a classroom teacher. Whereas in the early1960s about 16 countries had developed someform of project whereby rural primary teacherswere expected to be agents of communitydevelopment over and above their normalclassroom teaching, by the early 1980s,according to UNESCO sources, there were over40 countries using rural teachers and/or com-munity schools in this way. These range fromcountries such as China, India, Indonesia, thePhillipines and Thailand in Asia; Argentina,Brazil and Colombia in Latin America; Cuba inthe Caribbean; Cameroon, Benin, BotswanaGhana, Guinea-Bissau, Liberia, Mali, SierraLeone and Tanzania in Africa and Iran in theMiddle East. As can be seen, their size andpolitical complexion vary widely.

This paper seeks to look at the theoreticalbasis for the concept of teachers as ruralanimateurs/community development agents inboth historical perspective and in more recent

47

K. WATSON

t writings; to examine three national case studies~ — from Thailand, Iran and Cameroon; and

from the specific conclusions from these studiesto draw general propositions that might have awider validity.

THE TEACHER AS RURAL ANIMATEUR

The idea of the teacher acting as a ruralanimateur, or change agent, is an attractive oneand has a long history. The argument is, putquite simply, that the village communities ofrural Asia, Africa and Latin America needhuman change agents who will act as catalystsfor community development, who will pave theway for new ideas, new techniques whether ofadult functional literacy, health, education ornutrition, water conservation or the use of fer-tiliser. Agricultural and other extensionworkers, health workers and even literacyworkers have a role but the ideal person whohas both the respect of the village elders, thecommunity leaders and the pupils, as well as thetrust of the government, is the village primaryschool teacher. He is to be found in all but theremotest villages, he has been trained (at leasttheoretically), he is (hopefully) receptive to newideas and he has the ability to put across ideasor else he would not be a teacher.

Such arguments have been given added im-petus by international organisations such asUNESCO, UNICEF and the World Bank. TheFaure Report, 'Learning to Be' (1972,pp. 77-78) for example, saw the role of theteacher as very much an animateur role:

The teacher's duty is less and less to inculcate knowledgeand more and more to encourage thinking; his forma]functions apart he will have to become more and more anadviser, a partner to talk to; someone who helps seek outconflicting arguments rather than handing out readymade truths. He will have to devote more time andenergy to productive and creative activities: interaction,discussion, stimulation, understanding, encouragement.

While this had a universal ring about it an in-fluential UNICEF report argued more specifi-cally that teachers in LDCs should serve 'moreas guides and coaches to learners rather than asdrillmasters and substitutes for a textbook'(Coombs and Ahmed, 1978, p. 35), whileCoombs and Ahmed's report on attacking ruralpoverty (1974, p. 217) came down firmly infavour of using rural primary teachers aschange agents:

Rural primary teachers form a potential reservoir of per-sonnel who with guidance and supervision could play auseful role in NFE programmes in their own areas. Theycould act as analysts and leaders of opinion in the ruralscene and help in the articulation of village needs. And,finally, they could lead in bringing constructive change tothe primary schools themelves.

That the theory of teachers as change agents isnot new should not surprise us. As Sheffield(1979) cynically observed when discussing thistopic, 'today's breakthroughs are yesterday'ssolutions revised' (1979, p. 120). Nor should webe surprised that the concept had its origins inthe minds of Westerners. Lauglo (1982) hasexamined the attempts to use rural teachers ascommunity leaders in the USA, UK, Franceand Scandinavia during the latter part of thenineteenth century and several scholars andpractitioners have explored the concept indeveloping countries (Batten, 1959; Houghtonand Treagear, 1969; Sinclair and Lillis, 1980;King, 1976).

Although in recent years much has beenmade of the term animateur as it was developedin French speaking West Africa, most notablySenegal and the Ivory Coast, there seems littledoubt that the concept originated in British col-onial Africa at the turn of the century. At thebeginning of this century, numerous Britishcolonial officials began to consider not only theneed to make the school curricula relevant tothe everyday needs of indigenous peoples butalso to link what happened in schools moreclosely with community development. Britishcommunity development programmes 'soughtto stimulate self-help actions in selected ruralareas to improve health, nutrition, adult educa-tion and general community welfare' becauseBritish authorities perceived social developmentas a far more worthy objective than economicdevelopment (Coombs and Ahmed, 1978,p.26.)

Following the 1910 Edinburgh Conference ofMissionary Societies considerable pressure wasbrought to bear on the British government andvarious colonial administrators to developmore practical and realistic educational andrural development programmes (Watson,1982a). The Phelps-Stokes Commission'sreports of the early 1920s added weight to thearguments then prevailing by stressing the needfor education to be more agriculturally andvocationally orientated (Beck, 1966; Jones,

RURAL PRIMARY SCHOOL TEACHERS AS CHANGE AGENTS 49

we

1922) and the Jeanes schools developed in EastAfrica and praised by Phelps-Stokes weremodelled on philanthropic schools for negroesin the southern USA whereby teachers were en-visaged as key agents in linking schools with thecommunities they served and in pioneering newagricultural methods (Berman, 1971). Husbandand wife teams were sent to rural communityschools to teach basic literacy, numeracy,agriculture, health, home economics andsanitation, a role not very different from thatbeing advocated in many LDCs today.

The famous 1925 Memorandum on Educa-tional Policy in British Tropical Africa whichwas to influence British colonial educationalpolicy for many years to come stated that theaim of education should be

to render the individual more effective in his or her con-dition of life, whatever it may be, and to promote theadvancement of the community as a whole through theimprovement of agriculture, the development of nativeindustries, the improvement of health, the training ofpeople in management of their own affairs.

(HMSO, 1925)

Other statements of policy followed. The 1935Memorandum on Education in African Com-munities stressed, amongst other things, theneed for community development and forteachers to be used as community leaders inadult literacy, health and agricultural pro-grammes. The 1948 Memorandum on MassEducation in African Society followed this upby also stressing adult education and com-munity welfare programmes, policies whichwere pursued vigorously in the years betweenthe end of the Second World War and the in-dependence of many countries in the early1960s. What is interesting to note is that thesuccess of many of these programmes has beencalled into question. Foster's (1965) work onGhana is probably best known but Cameronand Dodd (1970) have also highlighted pro-blems thrown up in Tanganyika, and Andersonet at. (1976) have more recently challenged theconcepts of both community and teachers ascommunity leaders in the African context. In-deed, Cameron (1979) has suggested thatNyerere has idealised the role of the teacher andeducation in the rural community ofTanganyika in the 1920s in order to justify hisprogramme of Education for Self-Reliance.

There have always been a number of sceptics— or realists — who have argued that demandsplaced upon the teacher as a rural change agentare impossible to fulfil. Over 20 years ago, forexample, Batten (1959), writing about theschool and the community in the Tropics, saidthat 'in the main the schoolteacher can besteducate and influence the community by thework he does in and for the school', by organiz-ing community projects and by making whathappens in school meaningful to the local com-munity outside. He really saw the teacher's roleas a supportive one for community develop-ment workers or agricultural extension workersrather than as an innovative one but herecognised, rightly, that the success of eitherrole is dependent upon the support and good-will of the local members — and leaders — ofthe community. More recently other writerssuch as Bergman and Bude (1976), Dove (1980)and Watson (1982b) have added notes of scep-ticism and uncertainty. Dove, Bergman andBude argue quite forcefully for the teacher tobe allowed to perform his role qua teacher moreeffectively before giving him added respon-sibilities to fulfil, pointing out that in mostrural communities the task of being a teacher isonerous in its own right.

Of all the developing countries, the Philip-pines has probably made greater efforts to in-troduce community schools in the barrios usingteachers as extension workers. The policy haspersisted for well over a quarter of a centuryand while it has been praised officially and in-ternationally some of the most scathing criticshave themselves been Filipinos. For example,soon after the Philippines had launched itscommunity education policy the basicphilosophy was challenged in no uncertainterms when Orata asked how realistic it was toexpect rural primary school teachers

to organise the cooperative society in the village, to im-prove agriculture, to organise adult literacy campaigns,to run a night school, to dig latrines and pits for thevillage, to plan houses, to grow flowers, to pour oil onmosquito infected ponds and incidentally to teach hispupils four or five hours a day?

(Orata, 1954, pp. 283-228)

His views went largely unheeded.

More recently, Albarracin (1976) has arguedthat few teachers are capable of fulfilling the

so K. WATSON

' many roles assigned to them in the officialpropaganda. The government expects teachersto be teachers in schools as well as being com-munity change agents and assigns them threemain roles — a management-facilitative-administrative role, a social role and a com-munity in-reach-out-reach role. Within eachrole there are listed numerous tasks and duties.It is doubtful if Superman, let alone a humbleprimary school teacher, could be expected toperform the variety of tasks successfully oreffectively.

Given the doubts and criticisms expressedfrom a variety of sources it is surprising thatgovernments — and official agencies — andtheorists persist in arguing that teachers in com-munity schools can be used as effective changeagents in the rural areas of LDCs yet a very re-cent conference held in Dar-es-Salaam wasdevoted to this concept1. Why should this be soand why has there been such renewed interest inthe idea of teacher as rural animateur?

There would appear to be several reasons.The growth in population in many Third Worldcountries has thrown an added strain on toalready over-stretched resources, adverselyaffected by inflation and the impact of the oilprice rises of the 1970s. Governments havetherefore been concerned to provide alternativeeducational provision without committingthemselves to vastly increased expenditure.Rural-urban migration has created socio-economic problems such as the shanty townsaround the major cities of the Third World,and the growing problem of urban unemploy-ment, both of which are potential threats to thepolitical stability of many countries. There istherefore a belief that urban migration can onlybe prevented if the rural areas can be de-veloped, employment opportunities be gener-ated and villages and provincial towns be mademore hospitable places to live in. There is alsothe recognition that urban areas depend upontheir rural hinterland for food; for food pro-duction to be increased there needs to be im-proved agricultural efficiency; for improvedagricultural efficiency there needs to be ruraleconomic and agricultural rejuvenation(Jacobs, 1978). Furthermore, there is therecognition, at both national and internationallevels that for too long the rural areas of the

Third World countries have been neglected andthat because a very large percentage of theworld's population lives in these areas of socio-economic underdevelopment there is a blot onthe dignity of man.

The need to develop the rural areas thereforebecame something of a battle cry in many coun-tries during the past decade, even though insome countries the demand for rural develop-ment has been more in spirit than inaction. A few definitions of rural developmentwould therefore appear to be useful if we are tosee why the teacher's role is regarded as soimportant. Weitz for example, regards ruraldevelopment as crucial to economic develop-ment generally:

It is a precondition for advance. Without it there is noescape from the abyss formed by the growing gap bet-ween those whose material wellbeing is assured and thosethreatened by starvation. Rural development is the key tothe whole process of development.

(Weil/., 1971)

Coombs and Ahmed have argued that the goalsfor rural development are

not simply agricultural and economic growth in the nar-row sense but are balanced social and economic develop-ment with an emphasis on the equitable distribution aswell as creation of benefits. Among the goals are thegeneration of new employment; a more equitable accessto arable land; a more equitable distribution of income;widespread improvements in health, nutrition and hous-ing; opportunities for all individuals to realise their fullpotential through education; and a strong voice for allrural people in shaping the decisions and actions thataffect their lives.

(Coombs and Ahmed, 1974)

However one defines rural development andwhether it is seen as the spearhead of economicdevelopment or as only one part of it, a key ele-ment is that of education, whether traditionalschooling or non-formal education or both,and a key figure in the process is that of therural primary teacher. This was recognised bythe participants at the Commonwealth Educa-tion Conference held in Ghana in 1970 (Com-monwealth Secretariat, 1970). It was even moreclearly argued by Fergus Wilson in the 1974World Yearbook of Education devoted toeducation for rural development:

Much has been said in recent years on the topic of waysand means through which Che human resources of ruraldevelopment may be mobilised for progress. Here is an

area ofhardly tbe chanconducj1

system -immensewho stattechnicalfor rurathroughmal andpartnersheretofoi

With SU'raised ineducatiorwonder tlsuaded buse teacdesignate(1976, p. 1ween tradinstrumentransformapproach'for in intias rural a.these quenationalwidesprea'have been

THRE

(i) Thai forAt abot

was launcithe Thai glaunched veven revolwere to beschool teacleaders. TrRural Teaclaunched ijteachers foeast Thaihtechniquesmethods clevels, agesof showin?(dropouts ;

RURAL PRIMARY SCHOOL TEACHERS AS CHANGE AGENTS

area of unlimited potential which in many countries hashardly begun 10 be effectively served. Attitudes have tobe changed, new values created and a general climateconducive to progress established. Both the schoolsystem and various kinds of technical training haveimmensely important roles to play. . . . The task of Ihosewho staff them calls for rare qualities of character andtechnical skill. . . . This is the frontline where the battlefor rural progress is to be won or lost. Rural peoplethrough the influence of education of many kinds, for-mal and informal, must be enabled to become activepartners in development instead of, as so oftenheretofore, the passive recipients of good advice.

(Wilson, 1974, p. 15)

With such powerful and influential voicesraised in favour of the need for reformededucation for rural development it is littlewonder that many governments have been per-suaded by the arguments and have sought touse teachers and schools — frequentlydesignated community schools or what King(1976, p. 12) has described as 'the interface bet-ween traditional schooling and NFE' — as theinstruments for bringing about this ruraltransformation. Yet how realistic is thisapproach? What pitfalls need to be watched outfor in introducing a scheme for using teachersas rural animateurs? In order to better answerthese questions it is worth examining threenational schemes which have receivedwidespread publicity to see how effective theyhave been.

THREE NATIONAL CASE STUDIES

(i) ThailandAt about the same time as the Philippines

was launching its community schools projectthe Thai government, with UNESCO support,launched what was believed to be a farsighted,even revolutionary, project whereby teacherswere to be trained for a dual role as primaryschool teachers and as community developmentleaders. The TURTEP project (Thai UNESCORural Teachers Projects) as it was known waslaunched in 1956. It was designed to provideteachers for the rural areas of north and north-east Thailand who had been trained in thetechniques of fundamental education and inmethods of teaching children of differentlevels, ages and abilities as well as in techniquesof showing adults and out-of-school youth(dropouts and non-enrollees) how they could

improve the local environment and standardsof living in the rural community.

A pilot project was established in UbolTeacher Training College in north-eastThailand and was linked with 23 rural com-munities. From 1961 the scheme was graduallyextended to other parts of the country withUNESCO providing the experts and UNICEFproviding supplies, equipment and transport.Initially the scheme was introduced to helpovercome the chronic teacher shortage in therural communities and to attract teachers to goto those areas with the 'carrot' that they had akey role to play in the nation's development.Gradually however the concept has taken on awider meaning — that of developing the ruralcommunities in as broad a way as possible usingrural elementary schools as community centresand teachers as change agents. While thescheme has been suitably modified for modernThailand the origins of the approach lie deep inThailand's educational history when the Bud-dhist monastic schools acted as focal points forvillage life (Watson, 1973).

Over and above the basic education course,which is the usual mixture of theory and skilltechniques, trainee teachers are given specialtraining in hygiene, rural health, agriculture,practical arts, handicrafts, literacy campaignskills and techniques of community develop-ment and recreational planning. The idea is thatthey spend 50-75% of the day teaching in theschool and the other 25-50% working in thecommunity. They are expected to show howlocal materials can be used in the classroom andto develop a respect for physical labour as wellas academic skills. Outside school hours com-munity development activities might includeimproving ways of earning a living throughdeveloping handicraft skills; improving livingconditions through health, nutrition and sanita-tion programmes; and developing civic respon-sibility and citizen participation through com-munity councils. By the end of training they areexpected to be familiar with the problems andrealities of working in rural areas and they areexpected to be able to develop a role in a ruralcommunity as quickly and as effectively aspossible.

Although the scheme has now been opera-tional for over a quarter of a century, during

K. WATSON

which time it has been extensively modified andimproved and although it is often held up as amodel of the use of teachers as rural animateursthere are a number of weaknesses which havelimited its success. The first is the quality of theteachers. Most able Thai students have usuallygone into university or college in Bangkok orone of the provincial capitals. Teaching in therural primary schools is therefore not seen as acareer for the most talented young men andwomen. Many therefore find it hard to live upto expectations of them, namely to teach effec-tively and to the best of their ability while at thesame time undertaking numerous activities outof school in the community.

The second weakness is that while the schemehas official backing and had internationalorganizational support, the fact that it was cen-trally conceived, planned and supported hasmeant that, as with so much of Thai education,there has been considerable rigidity in the train-ing schemes. These are more or less the samethroughout the country and a heavy emphasis isplaced on theoretical studies. The language ofinstruction is the central Thai dialect, althoughthe language of the community may well be oneof the regional dialects or even a triballanguage. Herein lie potential difficulties formisunderstanding and mutual suspicion ormistrust. Likewise, until recently, the cur-riculum used in school has not necessarily beenflexible enough for the teacher to adapt to com-munity needs since until the fourth NationalEducational Development Plan (1977-82),which has made provision for regional varia-tions according to local needs, the curriculumin all schools throughout the country was thesame.

A third weakness has been that although theostensible aim has been to improve life in therural areas for rural villagers there have beentoo few attempts to link up programmes ofrural development with vocational or employ-ment opportunities. This was a criticism madeby Coombs and Ahmed (1974) of many ofThailand's NFE programmes and is not justrelated to the TURTEP scheme. One reason forthis is undoubtedly the degree of bureaucraticconfusion at both national and local levels.While the rural teacher programme comesunder the auspices of the teacher training

department of the Ministry of Education thereare at least 17 other departments, ministries, in-cluding those of Agriculture and the Interior,and paragovernment agencies involved in NFEand rural development programmes throughoutthe country. Inevitably there is a lack of co-ordination and integration at the planning andimplementation levels.

The fourth and fifth weaknesses, andperhaps the most fundamental ones, arepsychological and are concerned with percep-tions and attitudes. Several observers haveargued that Thai villagers, especially far awayfrom Bangkok, have rejected governmentschool and secular learning because this did notaccord with their ideas of the moral andreligious functions of education as perceived bythe village communities and village elders(Hanks, 1958; Terwiel, 1977). Gurevitch (1975)on the other hand has cast a different perspec-tive on the attitudes of village communitiestowards rural primary teachers and certainlytowards teachers being used as change agents.He has shown that because teachers are civilservants and hence agents of central govern-ment they are viewed with suspicion in the eyesof most villagers. Moreover, because they arefrequently young, are outsiders from the villagecommunity, have been educated elsewhere andmay speak a different dialect, not only are theyregarded as of less importance than the villageheadman or local abbot of the nearby Buddhistmonastery, but they are not considered as hav-ing a community role outside the school setting.

This is an important psychological barrier toovercome before teachers can hope to win theconfidence of the community leaders, but itpresupposes that they want to. Most teachersbelieve that their educational experience attraining college as well as their language skillshave set them apart from the village communityand many resent working in the rural areas withtheir limitations on social life, poor financialrewards and limited facilities for educatingtheir own children. The result is that in thenorth and north-east of the country especiallythe problem of teacher absenteeism is quiteacute. Because they are civil servants, becausesalary and grades are linked and because gradepromotion is largely dependent on the examina-tions passed, teachers seek every opportunity to

RURAL PRIMARY SCHOOL TEACHERS AS CHANGE AGENTS 53

take extra credit courses as well as oppor-tunities to enhance their salary throughmoonlighting. Moreover, because they believe,rightly, that promotion in the teaching profes-sion is dependent on their teaching ability in theclassroom and on the condition of the schoolwhen it is inspected on one of those rare visitsfrom the supervisor or inspector, teachers aremuch more inclined to devote their energies toclassroom teaching and school maintenancethan to community development work.Gurevitch's observation is worth noting as itmust apply to so many developing countries:

As long as the reward system is structured as it is, andopportunities for advancement in the bureaucracy con-tinue to expand and are perceived as accessible to ruralprimary school teachers community development pro-grammes depending on the leadership role of the teacherwill meet with but limited success.

(Gurevitch, 1975, p. S80)

There is surely at least one lesson to be learntfrom this which has a wider application: thatreward systems must be modified to take intoaccount the changing role of primary schoolteachers in the rural community. Others wouldinclude the need for better planning and co-ordination at the outset, and the need to consultvillage leaders and if possible involve them inthe scheme from the beginning. To its credit theThai government has realised this need and dur-ing the past few years it has been trying to in-volve the community leaders more closely in theprogramme.

(ii) IranOur second case study is in some ways a

rather similar project to that of Thailand andreveals similar weaknesses and problems.

In spite of the propaganda of the presentregime in Iran not all that the late Shah RezaPahlavi did was wasteful or harmful to theneeds and interests of the country. In fact therewere a number of bold experiments undertakenas part of the Shah's White Revolution, laterrenamed the Shah-People Revolution (Watson,1976; Halliday, 1979). Perhaps the most strik-ing experiment and certainly the one thatattracted most international attention was thatof the creation of the Literacy Corps in 1963 atabout the time the International LiteracyCentre was established under UNESCO

auspices about 40 miles outside Teheran and atthe beginning of the Experimental WorldLiteracy Programme (UNESCO, 1976;Goldstone, 1979).

At that time Iran had a rural illiteracy rate of86% and the Shah decreed that he was launch-ing a campaign to eradicate rural illiteracy. Aspart of the crash programme he launched hisLiteracy Corps made up of secondary schoolleavers who could opt to spend part of theirnational service working as teachers in the ruralvillages of Iran. As in Thailand the immediateneed was to meet the shortage of rural teachersbut gradually the scheme was extended to in-clude literacy work and extension work pro-grammes. After six months of intensive trainingwhich included rural sociology, hygiene andmethods of teaching reading and writing inaddition to basic military training, Corpsmembers spent the next eighteen months inrural areas helping communities to build andestablish primary schools teaching youths andadults alike the rudiments of numeracy andliteracy in Farsi, the national language. After1968 it was agreed that girls could also enroland in 1969 a Women's Education Corps wasalso established. It became a common sight tosee young men and women of the LiteracyCorps dressed in khaki uniforms teachingreading and writing in remote villages in Iran.

Before the downfall of the Shah over 60,000villages had been affected and at least 750,000people had been made 'literate'. Because of thefavourable reaction to the Literacy Corps, aHealth Corps for para-medical work and anAgricultural Extension Corps were alsoestablished. Collectively they became known asthe Revolutionary Corps and offered an in-tegrated approach to rural development. In thiscase teachers were in a leadership role asteachers but in a supportive role as communitychange agents. On the other hand they were notinvolved in the programme as a career but aspart of national service, which meant that theirservice in the rural areas was of limited dura-tion. On completion of their national serviceCorps members were encouraged to continuetheir training as doctors, extension workers andteachers at the Revolutionary Corps Universityin the hope that they would continue theircareer in the rural areas. While many Corps

'54 K. WATSON

members undoubtedly did become involved incommunity development work as part of theircareer it has not proved possible to ascertain thepercentage or the number of Corps memberswho have done this.

While the impetus, and some funding for theproject came from UNESCO it was largely theShah's idea. As a result it had not only officialblessing but also official support and because itwas a bold conception and because it providedan alternative to routine military service itattracted many young people especially fromthe urban areas. Officially it was a great successbut there were a number of reservations orweaknesses about the scheme.

Firstly, it was a short-term solution to a long-term problem and it failed to tackle theunderlying problems of Iran's rural under-development. Many of the teachers saw thescheme as an easy alternative to military servicewhile the government saw it as a means of get-ting teachers on the cheap. Secondly, because itwas centrally conceived it lacked flexibility, itfailed to take into account the different cir-cumstances and conditions prevailing in dif-ferent parts of Iran and it became bogged downin bureaucratic inefficiency at the centre. Linesof communication between the centre and therural areas were inordinately cumbersome andseveral ministries were involved in training andsupporting the Revolutionary Corps.

Central control also led to a further problem.The curriculum, syllabuses and teachingmethods used for training were uniformthroughout the country. They failed to take in-to account the many tribal differences of Iran'spopulation and failed to introduce differentapproaches to instruction. This is most clearlyevidenced in the medium of instruction. AllCorps members were instructed in Farsi andwere taught to use Farsi, but although it is thenational language it is spoken only by aminority of the population as their mothertongue, a situation that became abundantlyplain in the aftermath of the Islamic Revolutionand the threat of the linguistic breakup of thecountry. Surprisingly, little attempt was made toresolve the linguistic difficulties or to link func-tional literacy with new employment oppor-tunities. One result which must surely call intoquestion the official version of the

programme's success is that in 1975 ruralilliteracy rates were still very high — 60% formen and 90% for women (Halliday, 1979).

A fourth weakness was undoubtedly thequality of the teachers. Many of them weretownspeople serving in rural areas with whichthey were unfamiliar and with which they wereoften out of sympathy. Because they were onlygiven six months of training in teaching tech-niques alongside their military and other train-ing they could not be made truly proficientteachers of literacy and numeracy to bothadults and children, let alone imparters of otherknowledge. Moreover, there was a striking lackof continuity because while RevolutionaryCorps members might serve in a rural com-munity for eighteen months, once it .wasassumed that the programme had been com-pleted little attempt was made to consolidatethe achievements by sending further Corpsmembers.

The fifth and most interesting problem,however, was a social/psychological one notdissimilar to that found in Thailand, Not onlywere Corps members seen as representatives ofan unpopular government but because theywere doing national service they came under thecontrol of the Ministry of Defence and woremilitary uniforms. As a result there was fre-quent non-cooperation on the part of manyvillagers" who resented both the army controland government interference. These were notinsuperable problems but the chances of reformwere overtaken by events. However, as far ascan be ascertained in the chaotic conditionsprevailing in the new revolutionary IslamicPeople's Republic of Iran, the RevolutionaryCorps continues to exist, though in a differentform. Teachers are expected to explain therevolution to the villagers as much as they areseen as agents of rural development.

(iii) CameroonOur third case study comes from Cameroon

in West Africa. Here a slightly differentapproach has been developed to the use of •teachers as change agents in rural areas. Effortshave been concentrated on training and retrain-ing rural primary school teachers to use newand reformed curricula designed to makeschooling more relevant to life in the rural areas

RURAL PRIMARY SCHOOL TEACHERS AS CHANGE AGENTS 55

and to prevent the drift to the cities. In otherwords teachers have been seen as change agentsthrough the application of curriculum develop-ment (Greenland, 1981).

As with the two aforementioned schemes theIPAR scheme (Institut de Pedagogie Appliqueea Vocation Rurale) which began in 1969 did soas a result of external funding from UNDP andUNESCO for the Rural Teacher Training Pro-gramme (ENIR) that had begun in 1967. Muchhas been written about the IPAR scheme (e.g.Lallez, 1974; Bergman and Bude, 1976) but asGreenland (1981, p. 2) has observed

A number of visitors to IPAR-Buea have written suchglowing accounts of the project that anyone who hasactually worked there would not recognise them at all.

The aim of IPAR, launched in a blaze ofpublicity by the President of Cameroon andwritten up in such glowing terms in numerousgovernment and UNESCO publications, is topromote reform of primary education in thesocial, economic and cultural context of acountry where 80-85% of the population live inthe rural areas, or, in the words of officialdom'to enable the government to determine themost effective means of achieving its objectivesof adapting the primary education system to thesocial and economic realities of trie country'.IPAR is concerned with ruralising education,with adapting education to the realities of thisessentially agricultural country . . . to affordyoung men and women a chance to enter thelabour market according to their capabilitieswith the benefit of up to date training'(Yaonde, 1973). In practice it has been anattempt to use schools as community centresand teachers as change agents teaching bothadults and young people alike in the hope thatyoung people will be persuaded to stay in therural areas and that adults will learn newtechniques.

According to the first director of IPAR,M. Francois Moudouru, at the time of thelaunching of the scheme,

realization of education is to give the content of educa-tion practical significance, to orientate knowledgetowards useful action, to open the child's mind, toprepare him for permanent education and individual orcollective initiative . . . to teach him to know his environ-ment, to love it . . . to accept techniques which will helphim tranform his environment with a view to a better life.

(Yaonde, 1973)

In order to try to achieve these aims emphasishas been placed on initial training and retrain-ing of teachers, 80% of whom were untrainedat the end of the 1960s and on the schoolenvironment — new approaches to teachingmethods, reform of curricula, textbooks,syllabuses and materials, use of locally pro-duced equipment such as benches, desks,blackboards and involvement of the com-munity in building, maintaining and financingnew types of school buildings. It was intendedto move the syllabuses away from the tra-ditional French encyclopedic approach towardsdeveloping attitudes of mind that emphasisedan inquiry approach and independent thoughtwhile at the same time relating it to the realitiesof Cameroon rural life. The environmentalstudies course for example stresses the localenvironment as a major teaching aid andteachers are expected to be flexible in theirapproach and in the use of local resources. Atthe same time they are expected to be able todevelop new farming techniques and to initiatenew craft programmes.

The aims and conception of the IPARscheme have been very laudable. The govern-ment had apparently learnt from previousmistakes, most notably an unsuccessful ruraldevelopment project in the Bonjongo area ofWest Cameroon which failed because parentsstill, rightly, considered academic education tobe the only true avenue to success through theexamination system and because local officialswere only halfhearted in implementing theschemes. Thus when IPAR was launched it hadthe full support of the government, at least onthe surface, as well as residential support.Village headmen, local administrators, headteachers and teacher trainers were involved inthe initial planning stages. However, as with theother schemes examined, there are some veryserious reservations.

Although the project was hailed as in-novative it was really only an extension ofsimilar projects tried in other parts of WestAfrica during the colonial period. There wereno pilot projects and the scheme was appliednationwide regardless of appraisal problems ordifficulties. It has failed to prevent the driftaway from the rural areas to the towns andcities. By the mid-1970s 55% of primary schoolleavers were still leaving their community either

j

i ii mi

K. WATSON

in pursuance of further education or in searchof employment. It has also failed to win overthe confidence of rural people, let alone inspiremany of the teachers involved. Why?

The plan was nationally conceived with theresult that the curriculum was standardised anduniform and the teaching was standardised. Asa result it failed to take into account the enor-mous geographical, climatic and cultural diver-sity of the country let alone make allowancesfor the different rural communities with theirdifferent power structures. There has been aconsiderable degree of bureaucratic confusionwith rapid staff turnover. There has beenuncertainty as to the real levels of official com-mitment to the programme. There has beenrivalry between French speakers and Englishspeakers. Disagreement between different aidagencies has exacerbated the problems. Therehas been little attempt to develop other sectorsof the rural economy so that new educationalprogrammes could be integrated into a ruraldevelopment package. There are severalreasons for this. According to Greenland (1981)wholehearted support for IPAR threatensvested interests. Too much money diverted tothe rural areas would mean less for the urbanareas where the influential middle classesreside. Other ministries involved in ruraldevelopment — the Ministry of Agriculture andthe Ministry of Rural Development — feelthreatened. Many teachers have either been outof sympathy with the aims of the programme orhave only given halfhearted support. There areseveral reasons for this. Where they have triedto teach agricultural and vocational subjectsthey have not felt competent to undertake thetask properly with the result that there havebeen frequent complaints from rural com-munities. They have been hampered because ofpoor conditions in many of the rural primaryschools which have made the task of perform-ing basic teaching tasks difficult without havingadditional community responsibilities. Also,the government has been unwilling or unable tofinance the programme adequately. Moreover,many communities have viewed with suspicionteachers undertaking a role beyond their tra-ditional role of classroom teaching.

Greenland has argued, however that themajor constraints have been political ones,

because while the Ministry of Educationresponded to President Ahidjo's call for a'Green Revolution' in the rural areas by pro-ducing the IPAR scheme, it has had no inten-tion of implementing and financing it ade-quately because not only would funds have hadto be diverted from other sectors of the educa-tion system but there would also have had to befundamental changes in the examination struc-tures, reward systems and salary structures.There would also have to be a fundamentalshift in thinking to accept a wider role foreducation in rural transformation than hashitherto been conceded. The result has been, atleast since 1977, a greater emphasis on cur-riculum development and a playing down of therural development element.

LESSONS LEARNT

What lessons can be learnt from these threeexamples of attempts to use teachers as changeagents in rural development? AH three schemeshave had international agency backing, werelaunched in a blaze of publicity, have hadofficial government support, though it must beadded, insufficient and unrealistic funding, andhave ostensibly been concerned with the prob-lem of rural community development but, whilenot in any way wishing to minimise the suc-cesses of the programmes, it must be admittedthat their success has been limited and theofficial rhetoric has been called into question.

In all three cases there have been admini-strative political difficulties, unintentionalmaybe but nevertheless very real, which havecomplicated matters. Excessive centralisationhas not allowed for flexibility, has meant thatregional and local variations have beenoverlooked and that a top-down approach toplanning and implementation has beendeveloped. Departmental and ministerialrivalry has added to the difficulties of the taskand has not always made it easy to pinpointresponsibility let alone to allocate funds forcoordinated rural development programmes us-ing education as only one part of an integratedprocess. Villagers cannot be blamed for regar-ding schemes — and the teachers — with somesuspicion.

Not enplace. Oiattempt msuspects t!was more ihave showpossible cobstacles tiexamples ;teachers anwith the larightly vie\picion andment agentof threat.seen their •fessional coof their eh:community

The traigenerally b;language nriculum it isyoung and itechniques cyoung childimunity leadtter of only ;structors thefacets of tfollow-up afinance to iischools, to pteachers' sal-:of the teachestressed thaiteachers as clbe done on tadditional ex

Should thereally. ManaiPhilippine's •been made tocept than prohave largely f-parents and K

It was not a spbarrio, the ids-alien. For the !.profitable for irural masses. . .

RURAL PRIMARY SCHOOL TEACHERS AS CHANGE AGENTS 57

Not enough grass-roots consultation tookplace. Only in the IPAR scheme was anyattempt made to involve local people, but onesuspects that this was rather halfhearted andwas more in form than in substance. The resultshave shown that too little was done to identifypossible cultural, psychological or politicalobstacles that need to be dealt with. In all threeexamples the language of instruction of theteachers and of the schools has been at variancewith the language used locally. Villagers haverightly viewed teachers with a degree of sus-picion and even hostility because being govern-ment agents they have seen them as some kindof threat. Teachers, on the other hand, haveseen their promotion prospects and their pro*fessional competence associated with the resultsof their classroom teaching rather than withcommunity development.

The training afforded to teachers hasgenerally been inadequate. Regardless of thelanguage medium and the centralised cur-riculum it is not very realistic to expect to trainyoung and inexperienced men and women withtechniques of adult literacy and the teaching ofyoung children together with the skills of com-munity leadership for extension work in a mat-ter of only a few months, especially if the in-structors themselves are only skilled in certainfacets of the training. Moreover, lack offollow-up and logistical support, lack offinance to improve working conditions in theschools, to provide books and equipment, raiseteachers' salaries, etc., have not made the taskof the teachers any easier. In fact it should bestressed that devising a scheme for usingteachers as change agents in rural areas cannotbe done on the cheap. If anything, it requiresadditional expenditure.

Should these conclusions surprise us? Notreally. Manalang has shown that even in thePhilippine's context, where more effort hasbeen made to develop the rural animateur con-cept than probably any other country, policieshave largely failed because of rejection by bothparents and teachers:

ll was not a spontaneous grassroots movement. For thebarrio, the ideology of community development wasalien. For the bureaucracy, this ideology was politicallyprofitable for it projected an image of concern for therural masses. . . . For the individual leaders of the move-

ment it was equally profitable . . . but the teachers andpupils experienced no corresponding rewards. On thecontrary, they were sometimes criticised for activities nottraditionally associated with the school. Teachers wereoverburdened since they had to add community educa-tion to their conventional teaching. Barrio people did notrespond as favourably and energetically as thebureaucracy had hoped. At times they perceived com-munity school activities as an exploitation of theirchildren, and as an intrusion into a domain that did notbelong to the school.

(Manalang, 1977, p. 227)

Above all however, if one considers the work-ing conditions of primary school teachers in therural areas of many parts of the Third Worldone appreciates that the demands made uponthem are inordinately difficult, if notunrealistic. Some of the political difficultieshave been explored elsewhere (Dove, 1980) butthe working conditions also leave much to bedesired. Schools are often overcrowded, in-adequately built, under-provisioned with booksand equipment. Teachers are usually underpaidand inadequately trained for teaching in theseconditions, where they are trained, let alone be-ing trained for a wider role in the local society.They find it difficult enough to follow theexisting syllabus using a framework of text-books and teachers' manuals but at least theyhave a degree of security. Remove this securityand expect an innovative animateur role andmany teachers naturally feel frightened. Know-ing that promotion prospects are usually depen-dent on infrequent school inspections, thatparents and community leaders as well as in-spectors will assess him on grade tests andexamination results, the teacher's natural in-clination is to pursue a restricted curriculum.Even in Cameroon and Thailand where the cur-riculum has been 'ruralised' the question of theplace of examinations remains unresolved, withthe result that they still dictate within schoolactivities.

CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS

In spite of reservations expressed in theearlier part of this paper I believe quite stronglythat the concept of teacher as change agent isworkable given certain conditions. Moreover, itseems inevitable that with the growing prob-lems of urban drift, rural underdevelopmentand population growth, and the inability of the

X

58 K. WATSON

* modern sector to grow sufficiently rapidly toabsorb the increasing number of school leavers,many Third World governments will be at-tracted by the idea of using teachers as changeagents in the process of community develop-ment. In order that new programmes may avoidsome of the mistakes outlined in the schemesstudied in this paper I suggest that the followingpoints need to be considered.

It matters less where the idea originates —central government, national commission,international organisation or individual — thanthat there is (a) government commitment and(b) detailed planning. Government commit-ment means a financial commitment. For anyprogramme to succeed it cannot be done on thecheap. Teachers need to be adequately trainedand supported and facilities need to be morethan second best. Methods of financial sup-port, whether national or local, need to besatisfactorily built into the programme. Thereis a need to recognise that there will be socialand political implications which could wellthreaten the existing status and vested interests.Successful rural development programmesmean a dynamic for change. Detailed planningmust not only recognise that integrating educa-tion into rural development programmes is acomplex process but must ensure that differentministries which might be involved have somesatisfactory system of coordination. From veryearly on in the planning process communityleaders, provincial and local administrators,teacher trainers and teachers likely to be used asmodels must be involved. Only in this way canlocal variations and problems be stressed, canpolitical and other potential opposition andsuspicion be anticipated and can the purpose ofthe programme and the role of the teacher beadequately explained.

The tasks expected of rural primary schoolteachers must be realistic and must be in accordwith the expectations of teachers and villageleaders. Not only must the training be realisticand of the right duration — six months or ayear is hardly sufficient time to train for theteaching of pupils and adults let alone for com-munity development work as well, especially ifthe trainee's own education has barely been ofthe minimum duration — but there must also

be revision for adequate inservice training aswell.

If the curriculum is to be 'ruralised' examina-tion structures must take this into account inorder that able children and their parents in therural areas do not feel that the new approachesare second rate. If able teachers are to be per-suaded to accept their new role in the ruralareas they need the reassurance that they willnot lose out financially vis-d-vis their urbancounterparts. Ideally, the reward system shouldfavour these teachers rather than thoseoperating in the more traditional education sec-tor in the towns.

These proposals — government commit-ment, planning, financial support, admini-strative coordination, involvement of com-munity leaders, realistic tasks for teachers,reformed examination systems to take intoaccount the new rural curriculum, reformedreward systems — are offered not as anyblueprint but as points for consideration in anynew programmes that might be initiated. Thisauthor at least believes that in this way thechances of teachers becoming rural changeagents will be considerably enhanced.

NOTE

1. An international conference on Education for Com-munity Development was held at Arusha, Tanzania underthe auspices of the University of Dar-es-Salamm from 12 to17 April 1982.

REFERENCES

Albarracin, N. (1976) The Non-Traditional Role ofTeachers in the Philippines and the implications forTeacher Education. South-East Asia Ministry ofEducation, Bangkok.

Anderson, J. and Anderson, J. (1976) Community: theexploration of a concept. In Education and Communityin Africa (edited by King, K.). Centre for AfricanStudies, Edinburgh.

Batten, T. R. (1959) The School and Community in theTropics, Oxford University Press, London.

Beck, A. (1966) Colonial Policy and Education inBritish East Africa. Journal of British Studies. 5,115-138.

Bergman, H. and Bude, U.K. (1976) An analysis of existingschool community participation in a central Africancountry. In Education and Community in Africa(edited by King, K.), pp. 121-160. Centre for AfricanStudies, Edinburgh.

RURAL PRIMARY SCHOOL TEACHERS AS CHANGE AGENTS 59

Berman, E. H. (1971) American influence on Africaneducation: the role of the Phelps-Stokes 'funds'education commissions. Comparative Education Review15, 122-145.

Cameron, J. (1979) Education, Individuality andCommunity. London University Institute of Education,mimeographed.

Cameron, J. and Dodd, W. A. (1970) Society, Schoolsand Progress in Tanzania. Pergamon Press, Oxford.

Cameroon, Ministry of Education (1973) The Reform ofPrimary Education in the Cameroon: Seminar forAdministrative and Political Cadres. Yaonde,Cameroon.

Commonwealth Secretariat (1970) Education in RuralAreas. Report of the Commonwealth Conference onEducation in Rural Areas, Univesity of Ghana, Legon,Accra, 22 March-2 April, 1970.

Coombs, P. H. and Ahmed, M. (1974) Attacking RuralPoverty: How Non-Formal Education Can Help.Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore.

Coombs, P. H. and Ahmed, M. (1978) New Paths toLearning for Rural Children and Youth. InternationalCouncil for Educational Development, Essex,Connecticut.

Dove, L. A. (1980) The teacher and the rural communityin developing countries. Compare 10, 17-29.

Faure, E. (1972) Learning to Be, UNESCO, Paris.Foster, P. (1965) Education and Social Change in Ghana.

Routledge & Kegan Paul, London.Goldstone, M. F. (1979) The experimental world literacy

programme and its assessment. Compare 9, I.Greenland, J. (1981) IPAR-Buea: Elements of an evalu-

ation, Bristol University School of Education. Mimeo-graphed,

Gurevitch, R. (1975) Teachers, rural development and thecivil service in Thailand. Asian Survey XV. 870-881.

Halliday, F. (1979) Iran: Dictatorship and Development.Penguin, Harmondsworth.

Hanks, L. (1958) Indifference of modern education in aThai farming community. Human Organization 17,9-14.

HMSO (1925) Education Policy in British TropicalAfrica, Cmnd 74, London.

Houghton, H. and Tregear, R. (1969) CommunitySchools in Developing Countries. UNESCO Institutefor Education, Hamburg.

Husen, T. (1979) The School in Question. OxfordUniversity Press, London.

Jacobs, J. (1978) The Economy of Cities. Penguin,Harmondsworth.

Jones, T. J. (1922) Education in Africa: A study ofwest, south and equatorial Africa, AfricanEducation Commission, Phelps-Stokes Fund, New York.

King, K. (ed.) (1976) Education and Community in Africa.University of Edinburgh Centre for African Studies,Edinburgh.

Lallez, R. (1974) An experiment in the realizationof education: IPAR and the Cameroonian reform.Experiments and Innovations in Education No. 8.UNESCO, Paris.

Lauglo, J. (1982) Rural Teachers as Potential CommunityLeaders? Contrasting historical cases in westerncountries. Paper presented at the CIES AnnualConference, 18-21 March, New York City.

Manalang, P. S. (1977) A Philippine Rural School:its Cultural Dimension. University of Hawaii Press,Honolulu.

Orata, P. T. (1954) Educational Trends Abroad.University Publishing Co., Manila.

Sheffield, J. (1979) Response paper in Teacher Educationin Developing Prospects for the Eighties (editedby Gardner, R.) University of London Institute ofEducation, London.

Simmons, J. (ed.) (1980) The Education Dilemma:Policy Options for Developing Countries in the1980s. Pergamon Press, Oxford.

Sinclair, M. E. and Lillis, K. (1980) School andCommunity in the Third World. Croom Helm, London.

Terwiel, B. J, (1977) The development of a centrallyorganized education system in Thailand. In Appetitefor Education in Contemporary Asia (edited by Orr, K.)Australian National University, Development StudiesCentre, Canberrra. Monograph No. 10

UNESCO (1976) The Experimental World LiteracyProgramme: a critical assessment. Paris.

Watson, K. (1973) The Monastic tradition ineducation in Thailand. Paedagogica HistoricaXIII, 2.

Watson, K. (1976) The Shah's White Revolution —education and reform in Iran. ComparativeEducation 12, I.

Watson, K. (1982a), Education in the Third World:the Continuing Colonial Impact. Croom Helm,London.

Watson, K. (1982b) Teachers and Community Schoolsas instruments of rural development: the rhetoricand the reality. International Community EducationAssociation, Melbourne.

Weiler, H. N. (1978) Education and development: from theage of innocence to the age of scepticism. ComparativeEducation 14. 179-198.

Weitz, R. (ed.) (1971) Rural Development in a ChangingWorld Yearbook of Education, pp. 15-20. Evans,Cambridge, Mass.

Wilson, F. (1974) Education and rural development.World Yearbook of Education, pp. 15-20. Evans,London.

World Bank (1974) Education Sector Policy Paper,Washington, DC.

World Bank (1980) Education Sector Policy Paper,Washington, DC.