Some reflections on international development partner (DP) roles in

supporting an enabling environment for multilingual education

Amanda Seel 4th International Language and Education Conference

Bangkok, 6-8 November, 2013

This presentation offers some reflections of an international consultant in education on the questions: are education Development Partners (DPs) and

harmonized assistance modalities such as Sector-wide Approaches (SWAps) making a difference to MLE?

if so, why and how? if not, why not and how not? how could DPs and development partnerships be

improved to achieve greater support for MLE? It is not suggested that DPs and DP mechanisms are the

most important influence on MLE policy and practice, but that in some contexts there is the potential for a strong supportive role for DPs, which is as yet being under-realized.

Many of the poorer countries of Asia-Pacific region, which face some of the most daunting challenges of addressing linguistic diversity, are supported by groups of DPs in implementing plans for education sector development. Six examples are used here: Cambodia, Bangladesh, Nepal, Myanmar, Lao PDR, and Vanuatu. Many of the same DPs are supporting education in many of these countries. (Slides 6-7)

In theory, the harmonized way or working within a Sector Wide Approach (SWAp) should bode well for making progress on the complex issue of multilingual education (Slide 8)

In practice, this seems to be the case to some extent. SWAp documents suggest an increasing attention to multilingual issues in 4 of the 6 example countries. There is some evidence of SWAp processes supporting these developments. (Slides 9-10)

However, in all cases, there is still a lot of confusion about language on the DP side, and many agencies continue take different stances on language in different contexts. (Slides 11-13)

Moreover, even where there is strong policy commitment to MLE, it seems not guaranteed that a SWAp will automatically create an effective enabling environment for MLE piloting and subsequent systemic adoption. (Slides 13-15)

Some of the reasons for the confusions and gaps in the discourse, policy dialogue and actions of individual agencies or of DP groups include gaps in organisational policy the ways in which different DPs capacitate and organise

themselves to engage in ‘policy dialogue’ in education the nature and effectiveness of SWAp structures and

mechanisms (Slides 16-19)

MLE could be more effectively supported through education SWAps by addressing these gaps and weaknesses (Slides 20-21)

Nepal: School Sector Reform Programme (SSRP): ADB, Australia*, EU, DFID, Denmark, Finland, Norway, UNICEF, WB; FTI/GPE, UNESCO, WFP, JICA- and many INGOs.

Bangladesh: Primary Education Development Programme (PEDP) 1, 2 and 3: ADB, Australia, EU, DIFD (UK), WB, SIDA, Canada, UNICEF, JICA.

Myanmar: Multi Donor Education Fund supports basic education through UNICEF and NGOs (UNICEF, EU, DFID, Australia, Norway, Denmark, Germany); current Comprehensive Education Sector Review (CESR) to support an Education Sector Plan (Above plus UNESCO, JICA, World Bank, ADB, USAID: developing Myanmar Education Consortium (NGOs and INGOs);

*AusAId is now being absorbed into Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT).

Cambodia: Progressive Education Sector Plans (ESPs)- latest for 2014-2018. ADB, SIDA, EU, UNICEF, UNESCO, JICA, WB, some INGOs

Lao PDR: Education Sector Development Plan 2011-2015: AusAID, World Bank, FTI/GPE, UNICEF, ADB, (EU), UNESCO, WFP

Vanuatu: Vanuatu Education Sector Strategy (VESS), Vanuatu Education Roadmap (VERM) and Vanuatu Education Sector Programme (VESP): AusAID, NZAID, UNICEF + France, JICA, UNESCO, WB+ INGOs (both in parallel and sub-contracted by government using DP funding)

A way to achieve a common vision for equitable, quality education- including the role of languages

A means of ensuring government has clear overview of the sector and can ensure policy coherence (as opposed to confusion, contradiction)

A means of improving the sequencing and linking of different strategies and actions (so that teacher education, school management development etc. can support MLE)

A means of building systematic capacity at different levels A means of making effective use of the strengths of

different agencies (comparative advantage) , whilst preventing them pulling in different directions (cherry picking, pet issues)

Bangladesh-shift towards mainstreaming of ‘inclusive education for tribal and minority children’ under PEDP-III- but still very little mention of language or literacy in core documents.

Nepal- much stronger recognition of all equity issues (poverty, caste, gender)- and their inter-relationship. Commitment to make 7500 schools ‘multilingual education schools’- targets in terms of materials developed, schools adopting MLE- but incomplete articulation of how this fits into broader quality development policy, goals and strategy.

Cambodia- from a pilot approach with NGO support under previous ESP to a government-led approach within the 2014-2018 ESP. Some evidence that SWAp coordination and budgeting has facilitated effective mainstreaming.

Vanuatu- Language issues are more comprehensively analysed in VESS and VERM. The new VESP is less comprehensive and coherent in its coverage of language issues, but in practice more funds will actually be available for MLE under VESP!

Generally strengthening of focus on ‘learning outcomes’ including a strengthening priority to early grade reading (EGRA), but often without explicit reference to the languages of literacy.

Generally increasing recognition of a role for ECD or a pre-primary year in supporting ‘school readiness’, but often without explicit discussion on the language implications.

There are too many languages and it will be too expensive (a DP doing great MLE work in a neighbouring country)

We don’t have any organisational background in this area (a DP doing great MLE work elsewhere in the region)

The evidence is quite clear that children must have 3 years teaching in the mother tongue’- we expect to see quicker progress on this! (a funding DP to an implementing DP, during a time of sensitive negotiation)

Language is not so much of an interest for us, we are focusing mostly on gender and disability. (A bilateral DP)

We really recognise the potential of the new language policy- an important priority for us! (representative of the same DP agency as that one that made the previous comment, but in a different country).

Look how hard Khmer/Lao/Myanmar language is! Minority children will need to start early to be able to master it. Variations of this are ‘How complex the script!’; ‘How difficult the tones!’ (Various DPs).

Mother language teaching should be addressed through early childhood programmes so that the formal system can concentrate on the national language.(Bilateral DP).

We will let ‘Donor Y’ take care of MLE- they have the detailed technical expertise.

We are very interested in improving reading, but not in multilingual education per se. (Multilateral agency).

SSRP- government and INGO supported programmes, aim for 7500 ‘MLE schools’

Evaluations suggest that programmes are making valiant efforts, some commendable achievements, but are: Limited to where local teachers are available Having to develop basic pedagogy (including multigrade)

and encourage more than superficial changes to the learning environment

Starting from scratch with teacher understanding of how children learn language and literacy

Constrained by limited school management capacity Not always ensuring that ECD is included in the MLE

programme Constrained by poor facilities and inequalities in resource

distribution Struggling to keep up parents’ interest and commitment for

long enough for results to be seen

The evaluations tend to recommend on the projects themselves “keep trying!” but do not identify solutions for the problems of the ‘enabling environment’.

Meanwhile, under the SSRP, wider strategies which should be conducive to MLE are being implemented (ECD expansion, teacher training, ‘joyful learning’, curriculum reform, school management training, resource targeting). However, these are not sequenced or prioritised with the direct intention to support more effective MLE piloting.

The SSRP Mid Term Review (2012) identified poor teaching and acquisition of reading skills, but its recommendations on early grade reading do not cross- reference to the MLE policy or pilots.

In other words, despite the SWAP, the MLE projects have largely run as discrete and isolated projects.

Vanuatu- also faces challenges of policy coherence despite a SWAp e.g. ECE curriculum has been developed separately from primary curriculum, language and culture are not prioritised in strongly prioritised in the new School Quality Standards, addressing multilingual contexts not yet mainstreamed into teacher education.

Cambodia- a positive example of where achievement of clear processes of planning, budgeting and coordinated capacity development (through the SWAp) is enabling gradual scale-up and institutionalisation of MLE pilots.

Lao PDR: former effective AusAID-supported programme in training/ deployment of local teachers not carried forward in subsequent national sector plan. Concepts of ECD as ‘school readiness’ further increasing the focus on Lao language learning at ECD/pre-school level.

Of the DPs that prioritise education, most have policies/ organisational strategies that emphasise quality, but only a few (DFID, USAID and WB) provide solid approaches for supporting quality improvement. However, even these do not mention which should be the languages of literacy and learning (Mercer, 2013)

World Bank Education Strategy 2020 (2011) makes no mention of issues around the Language of Instruction; moreover this gap is not picked up in major critiques that have been written of the strategy (Brock-Utne, Mercer, 2013)

Whilst DPs talk about equity, in practice there is still a stronger focus on gender and poverty than on other dynamics of disadvantage/ exclusion (Faul, 2013).

UNICEF has long used a model of ‘Child Friendly Schools’ as a way of realising a rights-based approach to education- this framework subsumes language/ ethnicity under a general label of ‘inclusive education’. UNICEF is increasing its work in MLE, but has not yet taken a clear organisational stance.

WB, USAID and DFID, in particular, have supported a shift from a focus on quality inputs to literacy and numeracy outcomes. This in turn has led to a stronger emphasis on literacy and numeracy assessments. So far, EGRA seems to be being undertaken only in national or dominant languages and the possible implications (e.g. ‘driving down’ the age of transition so that children will be able to pass the test) not much debated.

In a climate of austerity (and increasing questioning of the effectiveness of international aid), all DPs are facing increasing pressures to prove results. Unfortunately, for MLE, these can never be quick.

‘Generalists’ -have to cover a number of sectors- use ‘common sense’, leave it to others, lack of nuance

‘Cross-cutting’ advisers- (e.g. governance, social development) bring depth of analysis (equity, political economy, conflict)- but might not distinguish issues of language and of ethnicity, or make link to pedagogic implications)

Education ‘specialists’- often have a large implementation portfolio and may be less willing to commit time to dialogue

MLE specialists brought in for specific tasks- passionate commitment, but may be less willing to compromise (e.g. to talk about ‘progressive realisation’).

Organisational structures might not enable these different groups to communicate sufficiently; or time is never found!

SWAp set-ups might use ‘comparative advantage’ well, or enable individual DPs to ‘cherry pick’ issues in a way that fragments the sector/ lessens policy coherence

SWAp mechanisms give differing levels of real priority to national capacity development

DP groups take different approaches to policy dialogue, negotiation and plan ‘approval’.

Not all SWAPs have developed effective mechanisms for linking the learning from ‘policy pilots’ (including of NGOs) into ‘high level’ dialogue

There are often insufficient processes to develop ‘intuitional memory’.

Individual agencies Clarity of organisational policy on MLE/LoI – be more bold!

(Progressive realisation) Re-visiting organisational practices and structures to ensure both

balance and communication between ‘generalist’ and ‘specialist’ expertise

Opportunities for systematic professional development of education staff (AusAID had just started this when disbanded)

Issues for policy dialogue A shared vision of what is desirable regarding MLE/LoI, ‘owned’ by

all Keep an eye on EGRA (and PISA): How to take account of language

backgrounds? Different language regimes? Prevent a premature shift to the national language so that children will pass a test?

Think less about ‘school readiness’ and more about effective and age-appropriate learning opportunities for all children.

SWAp Processes Re-visit sector plans and policy frameworks from an MLE

perspective- how can ‘enabling’ strategies be better linked and sequenced?

Ensure MLE initiatives are designed as ‘policy pilots’ (not stand- alone projects)- attention to wide involvement, mentoring, costing, evaluation- from the beginning

Ensure that ‘SWAp’ mechanisms for coordination and ‘policy dialogue’ appropriately include the agencies that provide implementation support for MLE- and link into wider civil society networks that can support public debate and community awareness-raising

Comparative advantage not pet issues!- in line with DP commitments to to the aid harmonisation agenda

THANK YOU!