SECTION 3 -

PARTICULAR LEARNERS AND EDUCATORS

(continued)

WORLD DEVELOPMENT: A CHALLENGE FOR TEACHER EDUCATION

Introduction In January 1981 a conference was held at the University of Bristol to discuss the educational implications of the Brandt Report (Garrett, 1981). It was attended by over 180 educationists drawn from 27 countries and from all sectors of education systems. Study of the Report itself and the discussions which took place confirmed for participants that in highly significant ways educationists remain isolated from the mainstream of thinking about national and international development. The conference was critical of the Brandt Commission. This, the most important initiative in the field of international development since the Pearson Commission of 1969, did not include the development of human resources in its terms of reference; its report contains only scattered references to education. In an age when governments, particularly in the Third World, consider the provision of education as an investment in human resources and are prepared in many cases to allocate around a quarter of their recurrent budgets to education, the Brandt Commission had apparently devoted little thought to the nature and effectiveness of this investment. It contented itself with the assertion that it was 'essential that the educational aspects of improved North-South relations be given much more attention in the future' (Brandt, 1981). Whilst these criticisms may well be valid, it would perhaps be more appropriate to view the Brandt Report as a challenge: 'The shaping of our common future is much too important to be left to governments and experts alone. Therefore our appeal goes to youth, to women's and labour movements; to political, intellectual, and religious leaders; to scientists and educators; to technicians and managers; to members of the rural and business communities' (ibid, p. 29). Sadly, however, if understandably, there appears to have been no general enthusiasm among educationists to respond to this challenge. Such debate as has taken place on the educational implications of national interdependence and a New International Economic Order has been muted and uncertain, introspective and lacking in urgency. Educationists appear to have allowed their traditional and parochial concerns to obscure the threatening realities of a world in crisis. The traditional separation of education from general thinking about development is largely responsible for this situation. Educationists have asserted, and justifiably,

International Review of Education-Internationale Zeitschrift far Erziehungswissenschaft-Revue Internationale de P~dagogie X X V I I I (1982), 469-488. All rights reserved. Copyright @ by Unesco Institute for Education, Hamburg and Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, The Hague.

470 that education possesses a range of purposes which are largely personal and concerned with the well-being of the individual, with his intellectual and moral growth, rather than with national economic and political goals. In formulating our own philosophies we have failed to define priorities between education as a conservative instrument of cultural transmission and socialization, as an innovative instrument for promoting planned change, and as an instrument of human liberation. In practice we have allowed educational planning to be undertaken almost exclusively by economists lacking any real understanding of how education works, and its power and its limitations. We have accepted mutely the imposition upon us of a range of functions and purposes which are often ill-defined, conflicting and beyond our capacity. Our leaders have expected education, and particularly the school, to contribute to the solution of such problems as the creation and maintenance of national unity and stability, the promotion of national identity, the maintenance of the vitality of local cultures, the production of skilled manpower, the reduction of ruralurban migration, and the achievement of greater equity in the distribution of the benefits of development. Our clienteles, employers, parents and pupils, have their own expectations of education which sometimes run counter to those of educationists and planners alike and which largely determine the real function of the school: they are inclined to see education as a credentialling process, closely related to a narrow range of more desirable occupations to be found in the modern sector, and to dismiss adaptation to other purposes as a dilution of the real thing. It is hardly surprising that, bombarded from all sides with conflicting expectations, and with diverse proposals for reform, we have tended to keep our heads down, to carry on in our accustomed ways, performing the traditional rites of examination and certification, taking on the protective coloration of the times but remaining the same old chameleon underneath. Yet we are often conscious of the unsatisfactory nature of what we do, and this consciousness breeds demoralization. At the Bristol conference I argued: 'Few of us feel at home in the world of UNCTAD and GATT, of the International Monetary Fund, of special drawing rights and the like. Development planning has bemused us for years, the language and mystical rites of the planners and even of educational planners remain foreign and even alien to many of us. Yet this is the world with which we must deal and which we must struggle to understand.' How realistic a statement was this. A few years ago Harold Brookfield wrote: ' . . . To pretend that we have yet understood the process of change so well as to be able to predict i t . . . is the most arrogant conceit. The task remains before us and what any of us has yet achieved is no more than a beginning' (Brookfield 1975, p. 83). If the process of development and social change is so little understood even by specialists, how can general educationists be expected to come to terms with it? To ask such a question is not mere academic speculation. Deeply practical issues are involved, affecting in particular how far and how effectively educationists can be involved in the development debate, be consulted about educational reform and reconstruction, and gear our own day-to-day teaching to the needs of the world we live in. We can examine the significance of this question perhaps most clearly in respect of the teaching of development studies.

471

Development Studies In recent years many scholars have pointed out the relative ineffectiveness of traditional subject matter particularly in geography, history and social studies in countering damaging and inaccurate stereotypes and images of other peoples and countries. In consequence at least in the schools of some Northern countries, there has been urged the need to introduce specialist studies, variously termed Development, Third World or World Studies. In many countries of the South, the international dimensions of the curriculum have on the whole received little attention. The current thrust in countries of Africa and Asia towards linking the school more closely to the grass roots community, to the world of work and to the local culture, leaves little room and energy for 'international education'. Even where Development Studies have been introduced these have tended to focus upon the local and national, not the international. Experience with curricular and managerial innovation has taught us that education systems and institutions are characterized by strong and not necessarily disreputable inertial forces, and has directed our attention to the need to devise modes of innovation which take these more fully into account. In particular, we are re-learning the importance of the readiness and ability of teachers to implement changes. In 1974, the Wrights, examining the situation in British schools, painted a very depressing picture, noting a 'vicious circle of apathy' among teachers who, as a result of their education and training, lack real awareness of the world development context, have few opportunities or incentives to develop this awareness, and consequently do not demand the introduction of appropriate syllabuses of examinations or materials. As a result, they argue, a further generation of pupils emerges from school lacking awareness and a new generation of teachers enters the schools unprepared for the task (Wright, 1974). Whilst growing numbers of teachers in Northern countries have clearly demonstrated their considerable degree of commitment in respect of world development issues, it has been argued that this concern is largely coloured by attitudes transmitted by the media and shared with the general public, described in a British survey as 'confused by stereotype images, post-colonial guilt, racial and cultural prejudices, limited, unbalanced knowledge, concern about future domestic employment, the belief that overseas development is synonymous only with aid and that aid is motivated only by charity' (MOD 1978, pp. 1-2). Moreover, development education poses many difficult problems even for the most highly aware and committed teacher. There is real confusion over what development education is. The Trent Park Conference in 1977 noted that since there was no universally accepted definition of development, it was not surprising that there was no agreed description of development education. This conference agreed that it should involve 'the study of economic and social conditions and directed change, not only in other countries but also in our own society' (CWDE, 1977); but what precisely was the purpose of such study? A UN working group has stated that the objective is 'to enable people to participate in the development of their community, their nation, and the world as a whole' (UNICEF, 1976), whilst a British advisory committee argued that 'its purpose is to encourage widespread involvement in action for improvement' (MOD, 1978). Herein lies a central problem for teachers who have been uneasy and even alarmed about the political implications of such statements. Whilst accepting that pupils should be made aware of certain facts about development and social change, they

472 are acutely aware that the interpretation of such facts is highly controversial and likely to involve adopting a particular ideological stance. Teachers may also be acutely conscious of the limited effect to be anticipated from such teaching in societies which through their own practices and structures teach young people directly contrary lessons about how to conduct their lives, or in education systems the real function of which appears not to be to mount an attack on privilege but to allocate that privilege. In some systems they will recognize that if the subject is not examined, it is not likely to be valued, but that, if it is examined, it is likely to be studied for the wrong reasons and become yet another sterile academic exercise. Whatever the difficulties, however, it cannot be acceptable to teachers that we stand aside from the debate, that because the subject matter is confused and contentious and our own capacity possibly limited, we should suspend action until the dust settles and a generally accepted discipline of development studies has been developed at high academic levels. The argument surely must lead to the conclusion that whilst at this stage we cannot be prescriptive as to the content, methodologies, appropriate target groups of development studies, we must try a range of approaches, learn from our experience and that of others, and create for ourselves forms of development education which are valid in our own terms. The central question then becomes, How do we seek to prepare ourselves better for this task?

Education and Development I have used the notion of including development education in the curriculum as an illustration of some of the central problems educationists face, but it would be altogether too trivial a response to the Brandt challenge to confine our attention to curriculum reform. What is of far greater moment is the question of how far and how educational provision generally, both in school and out of school can and should contribute to desired development. As Encel has suggested, the movement towards a New International Economic Order involves new strategies and new objectives: ' . . . such objectives have an educational dimension, which entails a drastic revision of the orthodox assumptions about the relationship between economic development and education . . . . ' (Encel, 1980). Perhaps this demands that educationists refocus their attention, be less concerned with the development of education and more with the role of education in development. In practice, this might mean that we will, more often, begin with the definition of a development objective, analyze the factors affecting its achievement, and consider the ways in which education may assist. From this basis, thought will then be given to what kinds of education are needed and how they may most effectively be provided, and to what relationship this pattern of educational action should have to the other forms of development activity which are necessary. Such approaches would be situation specific, would draw extensively upon the analysis of past experience and at the same time seek to identify unique elements in the situation so as to guide judgement about the relevance of the study to other situations.

473 Implications for Teacher Education

I have personally observed and participated in attempts to do just this in institutions as widely dispersed as the universities of Bristol, Sierra Leone, Sao Thomas in the Philippines, and Srinakherinwirot in Thailand. The importance o f such approaches is potentially great, both in terms of generating coherent bodies of knowledge and of producing opinion leaders within the education profession. But this process is in an early stage and in any case must be complemented by other processes through which we seek to increase the receptivity and awareness of education systems as a whole. We need also to develop more appropriate mechanisms through which the lessons of research may be more effectively communicated to educational decision makers and practitioners both directly to inform their actions and also to increase their capacity to play an effective part in the debate. But, as Dieuzeide reminds us, time is not on our side: 'Has not the year 2000 - which is so often proposed both as a myth and as a target for studies in the future - already been pledged? More than half the decision makers, teachers and administrators in education who will be active in the year 2000 have already been trained today and one may rest assured that, whatever futurologists may say or write, their own psychological inertia, combined with the stability of the system, will protect educators from promoting any radical change throughout their professional lives' (Dieuzeide 1980, p. 260). The influence of teacher educators trained today will, he argues, extend to the year 2100. We cannot therefore wait until all the issues have been clarified and all the facts are known, before making a start, but must build upon what knowledge we have at present to prepare educators to make their own contribution to the debate. The conventional response to this challenge would be to seek to include in the teacher training curriculum at all levels a substantial component of study of development issues. For three main reasons, however, this response would in itself probably prove inadequate without a major transformation in the nature and content of teacher education generally. First we are coming to recognize that our efforts over the years to transform school systems through an infusion of new blood from the training colleges have largely proved ineffective because such a procedure implies the use of the youngest, least experienced and least influential members of the profession to overcome inertial factors. To change the school we need to work with and through the senior members - and, consequently, through processes of in-service rather than simply initiai training. Secondly, however, we must recognize that training - whether initial or in-service - constitutes only part of the process of staff development. Skill and knowledge must be complemented by measures to motivate the teacher to utilize effectively the training he has received. Here we need to consider not merely the counter-productive nature of current patterns of rewards and incentives in many education services but also the importance of breaking down the professional isolation in which many teachers and schools operate and the isolation of education itself from other forms of development activity. And such measures must be complemented by measures to provide genuine opportunity to apply what has been learned. Thirdly, we must recognize the implications for trainingitself of the fact that in

474 respect of development education we do not as yet possess a generally acceptable and clear-cut body of knowledge and theory, nor do we yet have a set of proven teaching techniques or a sufficiently large number of experienced practitioners to permit the application of conventional training procedures other than on a very inadequate basis. In this field, as in many others upon which education is being urged to enter, we must feel our way, learning as we go, and consequently the training we provide must equip teachers for this new kind of task. We have long argued that if the pupils and students we teach are to achieve a sophisticated level of understanding appropriate to their capacity, and if they are to move beyond the merely cognitive, they need to be active participants in the construction of meaning. This is a concept which we have been slow to apply to teacher education itself. Training has conventionally been a process whereby those who know, communicate what they know to those who do not know. All too rarely and inadequately have we employed activities involving problem-solving and knowledge creation. Even less rarely have our students been encouraged to learn from their own investigations, to develop thereby the skill of investigation and to extend not merely their own knowledge but the boundaries of knowledge itself. The argument here is that the educational response to the Brandt challenge depends crucially upon the development of the capacity of school systems for creative and autonomous adaptation. The achievement of this involves moving from traditional concepts of teacher training and of the trained teacher towards newer concepts of staff development and of the professional teacher. No rapid transformation of school systems is promised by such an approach but it may be that without such an underlying trend, apparently-more-direct courses of action will continue to prove ineffective.

Bibliography AVAKOV, R.M. (ed.) The Future of Education and the Education of the Future. Paris: International Institute for Educational Planning, 1980. BRANDT, W. et al. North-South: A Programme for Survival. Report of the Independent Commission on International Development Issues. London: Pan Books, 1981. BROOKFIELD, H. Interdependent Development. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press, 1975. CWDE. Learning to Live in a Changing World. London: Centre for World Development Education, 1977. DIEUZEIDE, H. 'Education and development: some remarks on priorities and challenges for future international action'. In AVAKOV, R.M., 1980, op. cir. ENCEL, S. 'The future of education in relation to the New International Economic Order'. In AVAKOV, R.M., 1980, op. cit. GARRETT, R.M. (edo) North-South Debate: Educational Implications of the Brandt Report. A Report of the Proceedings of a Conference hem at the University of Bristol, January, 1981. Windsor, Berks.: NFER-Nelson, 1981. MOD. Report and Recommendations by the Working Party of the Advisory Committee on Development Education. London: Ministry of Overseas Development/Her Majesty's Stationery Office, 1978.

475 UNICEF. Development Education: Its Importance for UNICEF. Geneva: UNICEF Office for Europe, 1976. WRIGHT, D. and WRIGHT, J. Action for Development Study. Unesco/FAO. Cited in MOD, 1978, op. cit.

Paris:

A.R. THOMPSON

INTRODUCING DEVELOPMENT EDUCATION IN SCHOOLS The process of introducing Development Education in schools is a process of deliberating, deciding, doing - there are these 3 D's in the fourth dimension of time. If you are yourself to engage in that process effectively, or if you are to support it effectively from outside with various kinds of assistance, you need to be able to disentangle its main strands; and, within each strand, the main threads. This paper will discuss seven main strands: Questions; Answers; Levels; Stages; Role; Climate; and Support.

Questions The questions to be asked when introducing Development Education in a school can be evoked crisply and colloquially: Who? Why? What for? What? Where? How? Well? - and so on. Stated academically, the questions have to do with learner characteristics and psychology; justification and rationale; objectives (knowledge, attitudes, skills); content and subject-matter; organization and time-tabling; pedagogy and process; evaluation and assessment; and implementation.1 Their substance is considered elsewhere in this Special Issue or is too detailed for general treatment, so will be neglected here.

Answers With most areas of the curriculum, and certainly when there are explicit moral and political concerns, as with Development Education, it is valuable to recall the concepts of ideology. In the world at large there is a tension, with regard to development and under-development, between liberal and Marxist ideologies. There are also particular variants of liberal ideology - romanticism, narcissism, individualism. There is, too, an attitude which is neither liberal nor Marxist but simply conservative. Political ideologies are reflected in, and strengthened by, educational ideologies. For example, there are conceptual and factual correspondences between conservatism and 'classical humanism'a; between liberalism and progressivism; and, in Western societies (but not, on the whole, elsewhere) between Marxism and the educational radicalism of, say, Paulo Freire. 3 It surely matters very much which of the ideologies is right, or most right, and which is most likely to inform action to create more just processes and institutions, between and within countries. At the very least, it matters that the debate should take place and should be encouraged. But where should the debate take place? Just at the moment this strikes me as a more important and urgent question than the debate's actual content. It is, accordingly, to this point that I now turn.