Towards a framework for researching the quality of education in low‐income countries

Abstract

This article introduces the themes and the various contributions to the special issue. It describes the evolution of the overall approach and framework for researching education quality used by the Implementing Education Quality in Low‐Income Countries (EdQual) Research Programme Consortium (RPC). The article commences with the background to the RPC including some theoretical starting points. It provides a critique of dominant approaches to researching education quality, namely the human capital and rights based approaches. This provides a basis for setting out the approach and framework adopted by EdQual which is founded on social justice principles. The framework is outlined in relation to three intersecting contexts, namely the policy context, the home/community context of the learner and the context of the school.

Acknowledgements

The ideas contained in this paper are the fruit of collaborative endeavour involving many colleagues involved in the EdQual RPC. I would like to acknowledge with thanks and appreciation their inputs. In particular I would like to acknowledge the input of Angeline Barrett with whom I have collaborated closely in the development of the framework model for education quality itself. Responsibility for any misrepresentation of their ideas is entirely my own.

Notes

1. There are also three small scale projects in the areas of inclusion, school buildings and the use of ICTs in education to support community empowerment.

2. In 2002, Southern and Eastern African Consortium for Monitoring Educational Quality collected pupil, class and school‐level data from around 40,000 Year 6 pupils across 14 countries, namely Tanzania (Mainland), Zanzibar, South Africa, Botswana, Kenya, Lesotho, Malawi, Mauritius, Mozambique, Namibia, Seychelles, Swaziland, Uganda and Zambia.

3. In Rwanda, for example, teachers participating in a research workshop were asked to describe what they understood by education quality through the medium of Kinya‐Rwanda. Rather than suggesting one term that directly translated, they in fact suggested four inter‐related concepts which are: Uburezi bufite ireme, meaning ‘Strong, firm or wholesome education’; Uburezi buboneye, meaning ‘Appropriate or fitting education’; Uburezi bunoze, meaning ‘Refined education’; and Uburezi buzirinenge, meaning ‘High standard or irreproachable education’ (see KIE EdQual 2009).

4. Ilon paints a future scenario involving a growing gulf in educational opportunities between emerging global elites and the rest of the population. According to Ilon, ‘a national system of schooling is likely to give way to local systems for the poor and global systems for the rich’ (1994, 99). Within this highly differentiated environment, a top tier will benefit from a private education that will make them globally competitive; a middle tier will receive a ‘good’ but not ‘world class’ education, whilst the majority, third tier, will have a local, state education that will make them ‘marginally competitive for low‐skill jobs’ (1994, 102).

5. This is, of course, a value‐laden term. In this context it is used to signify integration into the global economy but on terms that are advantageous to Africa; tackling poverty and gender inequality; and promoting African cultural values and norms onto the world stage (Tikly 2003).

6. See Tikly et al. (2003) for a discussion of the differing development paths and skills needs of Rwanda and Tanzania for instance. Whilst Tanzania continues to prioritise agricultural production and the service sector, including the tourist industry, Rwanda has sought to leapfrog the industrialisation stage and to become a communications hub for the region.

7. The role of education in relation to economic growth, however, has shifted over the years. An initial focus on manpower planning gave way in the 1970s to understanding better investment choices at different levels of education through rates of return analysis. In the context of the shift from the Washington to the post‐Washington consensus (see Robertson et al. 2007), human capital theory has begun to complement a continued interest in rates of return with an interest in education’s role in alleviating poverty and promoting social welfare, including women’s welfare, as a basis for promoting growth and human security.

8. A few less mainstream perspectives on education quality do attempt to locate learners within communities as we point out (Barrett and Tikly 2009).

9. Unterhalter illustrates this with reference to the prevalence of gendered violence against girls by male teachers or pupils in South Africa and consequent exposure to HIV (Unterhalter 2003).

10. A fuller discussion of these principles and of how they can be concretely applied to an analysis of education policy has been given elsewhere (see Tikly 2011).

11. See http://uwezo.net/.

12. This is similar to the transformative‐emancipatory rationale for mixed methods in social scientific research proposed in Mertens (2003).