Global Construction of Literacy Policies for “Least Developed Countries”: Focus on Ethiopia,Nepal,and Sierra Leone

Abstract

In the context of educational globalization and increasing dominance of supranational organizations in educational governance, least developed countries (LDCs) have faced a new level of tension about whether their educational policies should follow the global educational models or seek solutions of their multifarious problems by promoting local indigenous literacy practices. This article critically analyzed key educational policy documents produced by major supranational organizations and selected LDCs and argues that the deficit perspective in education started in the colonial period and institutionalized during the structural adjustment period has shaped literacy policies and practices even after the 1990s. The article concludes with an appeal for developing contextually relevant literacy policies and programs through an asset perspective; and provides directions for further research for exploring LDCs’ literacy policies.

Keywords

least developed countries deficit perspective assessment knowledge economy literacy policy

Introduction

In the first session of the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development held in 1964, delegates from the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) countries advocated for creating a new category among developing countries to attract special support measures to help them in reducing poverty, lack of literacy, and solving health-related problems (Least developed countries [LDCs], 2018). This initiative led to the establishment of LDCs in 1971. Since then, LDCs have been the focal point in the international policy discussions, conferences, and consultations organized in the context of global education movements, especially Education for All (EFA; UNESCO, 2000) and Education 2030 (UNESCO, 2015a). The reports of such discussions and consultations have emphasized the importance and urgency for providing literacy and lifelong learning opportunities for the most marginalized group of people of those countries. The Committee for Development Policy (CDP) of the United Nations use three criteria—Gross National Income (GNI) per capita, Human Assets Index (HAI), and Economic Vulnerability Index (EVI)—to identify LDCs and review the list every 3 years. As of August 2018, there are 47 LDCs (see Figure 1) and majority of them are located in Africa (33) and Asia (9).

Figure 1.

Adult (15 years and older) literacy rate (%) of LDCs (least developed countries).

The countries of the world are classified in different ways. For example, UNESCO uses six regional categories (sub-Saharan Africa, Arab States, Asia and the Pacific, Central and Eastern Europe, Latin America, and the Caribbean) and the World Bank uses four income categories (Low Income, Low-Middle Income, Upper-Middle Income, and High Income). These classifications have their own merits and demerits; however, it is important to take at least one classification as the basis of analysis. Even though the process followed by the CDP in identifying LDCs is criticized for its modernist orientation (see Regmi, 2017) this article uses LDC category as the basis of analysis because one of the major components of the HAI used for identifying LDCs is adult literacy rate. It is important to note here that, with the rise of BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa) countries and Asian Tigers (Hong Kong, South Korea, Singapore, and Taiwan), in recent decades, LDCs represent the most marginalized group of countries of the Global South. Nearly four decades ago, Qadir (1982) reported that annual incomes of LDCs were no more than a weekly unemployment benefit in the European Economic Community. In the context of widening gross domestic product (GDP) gap between developed countries and LDCs, one will get more alarming figures today (see Figures 2 -4 for economic statues and literacy rates of LDCs). Hence, it is important to focus on LDCs as these could be the countries where colonial deficit is consolidated often through international organizations such as the OECD, the World Bank, multinational corporations, and philanthropic foundations (Verger, Lubienski, & Steiner-Khamsi, 2016) that not only provide financial aid but also shape LDCs’ economic and educational systems.

Figure 2.

External debt stock of Ethiopia, Nepal, and Sierra Leone. GNI = gross national income; LDCs = least developed countries.

Figure 3.

Average adult (15 years and older) literacy rate of LDCs since 1990. LDCs = least developed countries.

Figure 4.

Average annual GDP growth rate of LDCs since 1990. GDP = gross domestic product; LDCs = least developed countries.

Scholars (Preece, 2009; Ubah, 1980; Yates, 1984; Zachariah, 1985) who explored the history of LDCs’ educational practices argue that the Western education system including the selection of particular languages as medium of instruction (Parry, 1999) dominated indigenous educational and literacy practices of LDC communities during the colonial period. For example, Ubah (1980) studied the educational practices of Igbo people (the indigenous community of Nigeria) between 1900 and 1960 and argued that the education system started by colonial rulers had no intention of promoting local knowledge or providing young people with opportunities to engage in productive activities; rather the colonial education system aimed at strengthening colonial rule through mass schooling neglected indigenous literacy practices. The neglect of indigenous practices prevented indigenous people to develop their potential and “participate fully in the wider society” (Bélanger, 2011, p. 81).

A number of studies (Gonzalez, Moll, & Amanti, 2005; Lave & Wenger, 1991; Lind, 2005; Pitikoe, 2017; Preece, 2009; Preece & Hoppers, 2011; Ubah, 1980; Yates, 1984; Zachariah, 1985; Zipin, 2009) have found that the promotion of local and indigenous practices is more important than Western mass education system based on human capital assumptions (Becker, 1975) for finding sustainable solutions of the problems faced by the people of LDCs. Several scholars (Aikman et al., 2016; Asselin & Doiron, 2013; Bélanger, 2011; Lind, 2005; Lonsdale & McCurry, 2004; Maddox, 2014; Parry, 1999; Wickens & Sandlin, 2007) have explored international issues and agendas associated with literacy and provided a robust analysis of international literacy policies and practices. These scholars have advocated for more indigenous forms of education that value LDCs’ language, culture, and the lifeworld sustained by LDC communities.

In the mass schooling introduced by the colonizers in countries such as Nigeria (Ubah, 1980) and Congo (Yates, 1984), young people in schools were disciplined to make them believe that everyday learning practices (Jarvis, 2006; Lave & Wenger, 1991) of their homes and communities (Gonzalez et al., 2005) were inferior to what they were learning in the school. People of the culturally rich countries such as Nigeria started to see their knowledge systems and cultures through a deficit perspective (explained below) and encouraged their children to pursue Western education. As Regmi (2015) notes before they were ruled by European colonizers, these countries “had developed their own praxis of education that provided them with knowledge, social norms, values, morals and ethics” (p. 555). But after the colonization educational programs based on human capital rationale, which aims to produce graduates for finding salaried jobs in the global capital market, was introduced. As a consequence, the schools established by Western colonizers were regarded as a sole authority of knowledge. Since the source of knowledge was no longer of the elderly people, the young people who attended the schools had every reason to follow their teachers but not their parents because the latter neither held Western forms of knowledge nor power to communicate with colonizers.

As Merriam and Kim (2008) note the terms Western education or the Western forms of knowledge are problematic because while discussing the issues and challenges of LDCs, they may refer to the countries of the West; and on the other hand, they may refer to the educational system based on the human capital rationale noted above. Even though this article uses the term “West” to refer to the developed countries of the Global North (mostly economically rich OECD countries), it does not mean that all people and communities of the Global North are equally rich or, have benefitted from the human capital form of education. In this respect, it is important to be clear here that the critiques of the deficit perspective explored in this article can be useful to understand the educational challenges of the indigenous and underprivileged communities of the Western countries. For example, Silver (2013), who based her analysis on the Canadian aboriginal context, suggests that before aboriginal people of Canada were colonized by Europeans they had their own economic and political systems including social institutions. But during the 19th century, those systems and institutions were destroyed by a law called the Indian Act. The residential schooling system introduced by the colonizers destroyed indigenous epistemologies. Similarly, Ballantyne (2011), who explored oral tradition of Maori people in New Zealand, argues that the cultures, worldviews, and epistemologies of Maori people were negatively affected when the colonial rulers textualized them by using pen and paper.

During the 1950s and the 1960s, many LDCs were freed from the grip of colonial rule (e.g., Nepal¹ 1951, Cambodia 1953, Sudan 1956, Congo 1960, Nigeria 1960, Sierra Leone 1961, Kenya 1963, and Mozambique 1975) and great celebrations of independence were marked in the history of those countries. The people just freed from colonization had high aspirations of living a quality life. In that context, “educational expansion was a cause, a war cry, a catalyst for economic development, a leveller of hard set social inequalities” (Coombs, 1968). The focus on education was reflected through an increased percentage of school enrolment, higher levels of participation in adult education, and increase in teacher recruitment and literacy programs. However, in 1967, at the International Conference on the World Crisis in Education at Williamsburg, the participants raised a serious issue that showed a seamy side of educational expansion (Zachariah, 1985). The report of the Williamsburg Conference (Coombs, 1968) challenged the relevance of the Western model of education for LDCs. What went wrong with the educational policies and the philosophy on which those policies were grounded? To be more specific, why did not the same educational policies and practices that helped Western countries to be industrialized work for LDCs?

There could be several explanations of those questions. The practice of “educational policy lending” from the West that started during colonial period (Yates, 1984) placed the poor countries at a disadvantage because the educational policies were designed to fit quite different aims and circumstances of industrialized nations of the West. The policies fulfilled the aims of those industrialized nations at earlier times—as Western Europe’s recovery through Marshal Plan “was widely reputed to be a near miracle” (Zachariah, 1985, p. 3)—but as the time and context changed they became obsolete and dysfunctional for LDCs. In fact, such educational systems deprived rural areas of their best potential development leaders by draining bright and ambitions young people away from the countryside into the cities and developed countries of the West.

Moreover, even though LDCs formally ended the colonial rule they could not form a strong domestic economic base by creating infrastructure and jobs for their young people. In the context of increasing oil crisis of the 1970s, the debt of LDCs to international banks increased (McMichael, 2012). A new international strategy emerged for managing the debt in the early 1980s in the name of the structural adjustment period (SAP). As a result, LDCs were forced to cut budget in social sectors such as health and literacy as a condition for receiving SAP loans. According to Lind (2005), as the World Bank became “the major player in education policy-making in countries undergoing structural adjustment . . . the existing budgets and education ministry departments of non-formal adult education and literacy were dismantled” (p. 52) in countries like Ethiopia, Mali, and Mozambique.

The World Bank argued that such programs had “a poor track record” in terms of “the benefits and costs of literacy programs” (World Bank, 1995, p. 90) hence literacy-related programs did not receive funding. Some LDCs such as Ethiopia, Ivory Coast, Tanzania, and Nepal had organized programs and campaigns to fight illiteracy between the 1960s and the 1980s. Bélanger (2011, p. 84) notes that at the continental level, African ministers of education held “five regional conferences to develop basic education and literacy” between 1961 and 1982: in Addis Ababa (1961), Abidjan (1964), Nairobi (1968), Lagos (1976), and Harare (1982). The Education for Rural Development Project (1981-1985) in Nepal was recognized as a successful literacy project by the International Institute of Educational Planning (UNESCO-UNDP 1985). However, during the late 1980s literacy programs suffered in terms of funding and the neglect of educational policy makers in LDCs.

The review of educational practices of LDCs during the 19th century suggests that Western donors and policy advisors had a misconception that educational policy would work irrespective of contexts and circumstances. Building on this historical overview of LDCs’ education in general and literacy² in particular, this article aims to explore what perspective(s) of literacy has dominated literacy policies and practices after the Jomtien World Conference in Education (UNESCO, 1990).

Theoretical and Methodological Discussion

Because of the global educational movements such as EFA (UNESCO, 1990, 2000) and Education 2030 (UNESCO, 2015a), education systems around the world are converging toward a common goal: producing human resources required for the global capital market by promoting the human capital form of education (Becker, 1975; Bonal, 2002). In this context, an increasing number of studies (Verger et al., 2016) have been undertaken to explore how supranational organizations such as the OECD and the World Bank have shaped educational policies and practices of their member countries. However, those studies have mostly focused on the developed countries of the West; hence, the findings do not help much to understand whether LDCs have fully accepted Western models of human capital education, which is globalized through global educational movements such as EFA, or whether those countries have resisted the Western models of education to promote local literacy practices.

This article uses three major sources of data: (a) key educational policy documents produced by major supranational organizations (OECD, 1996, 2016; UNESCO, 1990, 1998, 2000, 2015a, 2015b; UNESCO Institute for Lifelong Learning, 2014; United Nations, 2015; World Bank, 1995, 2003, 2018b); (b) most recent educational policy documents produced by selected LDCs (MOE Ethiopia, 2015; MOE Nepal, 2016; MOE Sierra Leone, 2013) for implementing educational programs; and (c) quantitative data related to literacy of LDCs obtained from the Economic Analysis and Policy Division of the United Nations (LDCs, 2018), and the Open Data Bank of the World Bank (World Bank, 2018a). The analysis focuses on three LDCs: Ethiopia, Sierra Leone, and Nepal. One of the criteria used for the selection of these countries is that while they had high GDP growth (Ethiopia 8.5%, Nepal 7.5%, and Sierra Leone 6.0%) their external debt stocks were more than 50% of their GNI in 2017. In 2016, the GNI per capita of all these countries (Ethiopia $659, Nepal $727, and Sierra Leone $488) were below the average of total LDCs ($957). The logic behind the selection of two countries (Ethiopia and Sierra Leone) from Africa and one country from Asia is that there are 33 LDCs in the former, whereas there are only 9 LDCs in the latter group. As Figure 2 shows the GNI external debt stock for all these countries decreased from 2002 to 2014 but has started to increase after 2014.

To analyze policy documents, especially for examining how the idea of literacy is understood in the global as well as the national contexts, the article uses an asset perspective of literacy which entails that literacy policies and programs should focus on what people “have” learnt through their everyday practices (Gonzalez et al., 2005; Jarvis, 2006; Lave & Wenger, 1991; Silver, 2013) and through their struggles for living in hardships and poverty; rather than only focusing on what they “do not have” (Aikman et al., 2016) or are not able to learn. There is a growing body of studies in the areas of school curriculum (Zipin, 2009), health literacy (Chen, Goodson, & Acosta, 2015), school–community partnership (Valli, Stefanski, & Jacobson, 2016), methods of instruction (Crawford-Garrett, 2016), critical race theory (Yosso, 2005), and community development (Silver, 2013) that critique the deficit perspective and appeal for an asset perspective of education. By reviewing those studies and some others (Gonzalez et al., 2005; Lonsdale & McCurry, 2004; Parry, 1999), the article conceptualizes the key underlying assumptions of the deficit perspective in literacy as follows:

The deficit perspective sees the difference between the Western dominant form of education and the epistemologies of the Southern populace (in terms of their thinking, understanding and learning through their everyday practices in their lifeworld settings) as the deficits of the latter.

The deficit perspective sees the knowledge and skills required for the global job market as the only valid form of knowledge and neglects the indigenous literacy practices followed by the Southern populace. Hence, the goal of literacy is tied in with the agenda of helping individual countries become competitive knowledge economies.

The deficit perspective blames individuals (and not the institutional arrangements such as lack of funding for literacy programs as per the real needs of them) for the lack of literacy skills and failure to compete in the job market. Hence, literacy programs often do not receive funding from national governments as well as international donors.

The deficit perspective promotes some limited forms of educational practices that can be measured by using standardized tests. Because of this assumption the idea of literacy is equated with ones’ ability to read and write in selected languages because other forms such as critical literacy are difficult to test or measure.

Informed by the problems and challenges of LDCs and the key underlying assumptions of the deficit perspective in literacy noted above the analysis of the policy documents seeks to answer the following two research questions: (a) To what extent the literacy policies championed by supranational organizations are guided by the deficit perspective of literacy? And (b) what are the consequences of the deficit perspective in literacy policies and practices of LDCs? Despite the strong legacy of colonialism and the SAP, the governments of LDCs have committed that they would develop educational policies and programs according to the contextual realities of LDC communities (see the final part of UNESCO, 1998). Therefore, it is important to examine whether the LDC authorities have limited those agendas only to policy rhetoric or there is any substance in those commitments.

Analysis and Findings

The three key findings of this analysis are as follows: (a) the deficit perspective has led to the continuous neglect of literacy programs in LDCs while devising educational plans and policies, (b) literacy is taken as a tool for making LDCs competitive knowledge-based economies, and (c) the understanding of literacy is limited to ones’ ability to read and write that must be measurable through standardized testing systems. In this section as well as the next one, these findings are discussed in light of the review of scholarly literature and the analytical framework presented above.

Neglect of Literacy

Even though the EFA global educational movement (that began in 1990 and continued until 2015) helped bring millions of children to school it neglected literacy in terms of providing funding for literacy programs and developing literacy policies according to the contextual realities of LDC people and their communities.

The 1990 Jomtien Conference, which was attended by 1,500 participants including delegates from 155 governments and 150 I/NGOs, recognized that “more than 960 million adults, two-thirds of whom are women, are illiterate, and functional literacy is a significant problem in all countries” (see Preamble of UNESCO, 1990) and declared that all people have right to education; hence, they would “provide universal primary education and eliminate adult literacy” (UNESCO, 1990). It is interesting to note here that even if the Jomtien Conference report (UNESCO, 1990) recognized that the agenda of literacy was neglected during the SAP of the 1980s, the problems and challenges faced by LDCs and their special needs for literacy programs were not identified (see UNESCO, 1990).

Between 1990 and 1999 several conferences and consultations were organized and the role of literacy for the development of LDCs was emphasized. For example, in the 7th annual conference of the Ministries of Education of African Member States (MINEDAF) held in Durban in April 1998, the Education Ministers committed for “an expanded role for education which should be a lifelong process, a continuum which transcends schooling systems and which focuses on the building of a learning society, taking full advantage of what technology, appropriately adapted, can offer” (UNESCO, 1998). They argued that “this will be a reformed vision of education that de-colonises the mind and liberates the individual for full citizenship” (UNESCO, 1998). Ideas such as building of a learning society and taking full advantage of technology were adopted by the national educational policies (MOE Ethiopia, 2015; MOE Nepal, 2016; MOE Sierra Leone, 2013).

In 2000, the international community met in the World Education Forum in Dakar, Senegal and reaffirmed the vision of the World Declaration on EFA adopted by the Jomtien Conference. Building on the regional consultations held in six regional conferences, including sub-Saharan Africa Conference held in Johannesburg in December 1999, the Dakar Framework for Action identified HIV/AIDS, early childhood education, school health, education of girls and women, adult literacy and education in situations of crisis and emergency as areas of major concerns, and formulated a new set of EFA goals (see Foreword of UNESCO, 2000). Unlike the Jomtien Conference, the Dakar Framework declared that the “heart of EFA lies at country level” and recommended that “states should strengthen or develop national plans by 2002 to achieve EFA goals and targets no later than 2015” (UNESCO, 2000). The Framework recognized that “the challenge of education for all is greatest in sub-Saharan Africa”; therefore, “priority should be given to these regions and countries” (UNESCO, 2000, p. 9).

The African regional report produced by the Johannesburg Conference (UNESCO, 2000, pp. 24-34) envisioned that “education shall prepare people to take control of their own destiny, liberating them from dependency and endowing them with initiative, creativity, critical thinking, enterprise, democratic values, pride and appreciation of diversity” (p. 27). The report notes that for improving the quality of education each country should “redesign curricula and teaching methods accordingly to make them relevant to the cultural environment” (p. 28) of the students; hence, “education policies must be anchored to African reality” (p. 30). A critical reading of the report, however, reveals that some of the underlying assumptions of deficit perspective—that celebrates Western ideas of progress and prosperity—have shaped the discourse of the report. For example, in the Preamble the report highlighted that “education is the sine qua non for empowering people of Africa to participate in and benefit more effectively from the opportunities available in the globalised economy of the twenty-first century . . . the opportunities offered by new information and communication technologies” (p. 26, Italics added).

The analysis of policy documents produced by international organizations shows a gap between the rhetoric and the reality. While about 60% adults were found not able to even read and write only two EFA goals (UNESCO, 2000) targeted the adult population: Goal #3 (Ensuring that the learning needs of all young people and adults are met through equitable access to appropriate learning and life-skill programs) and Goal #4 (Achieving a 50% improvement in levels of adult literacy by 2015, especially for women, and equitable access to basic and continuing education for all adults). The Millennium Development Goals (MDG)—a set of eight goals with much wider significance than EFA goals—were adopted in September 2000 at the Millennium Summit of the United Nations. Following these global initiatives, the key policy documents (MOE Ethiopia, 2015; MOE Nepal, 2016; MOE Sierra Leone, 2013) produced by the governments of LDCs have recognized the importance of adult literacy in development. For example, MOE Ethiopia (2015) explicitly mentions that “the high level of illiteracy in the adult population is a barrier to achieving development goals” (p. 19).

Despite the importance of adult literacy for securing progress toward achieving all the MDGs, the Millennium Summit did not include adult literacy-related goals. Evaluation reports (UNESCO, 2015b) show that this particular goal was not achieved: “there are about 781 million illiterate adults” (p. xiii) worldwide. The report noted that “the rate of illiteracy dropped slightly from 18% in 2000 to an estimated 14% in 2015” but did not make toward the full achievement (p. xiii). The EFA and MDG initiatives brought some positive outcomes in terms of increasing enrolment rates at primary level, reducing child mortality rate in the countries like Ethiopia (MOE Ethiopia, 2015) but they failed “in addressing education in a holistic and integrated manner” (UNESCO Institute for Lifelong Learning, 2014, p. 7). One of the reasons behind this failure is that while prioritizing the most achievable goals such as increasing enrolment rates at primary level, some of the crucial agendas especially those related to adult literacy were given almost no consideration.

The 2015 Global Monitoring Report (UNESCO, 2015b) found that even though some of the previously set goals such as increasing the knowledge of HIV and AIDS were somehow met, LDCs lagged behind in several literacy indicators. For example, in Guinea and Niger over 70% of the poorest girls had never attended primary school in 2010; and unlike in other regions of the world out-of-school adolescents increased in almost all LDCs since 2000. Although the challenges faced by LDCs became a new policy rhetoric during the EFA (2000-2015) initiatives, the international community did not set any differentiated goals nor did they provide any specific support measures for helping those countries achieve those goals. In fact, funding for education in LDCs significantly declined after 2002.

Competitive Knowledge Economy

The policy documents produced by both supranational organizations (OECD, 1996; World Bank, 1995, 2003, 2018b) and LDC governments (MOE Ethiopia, 2015; MOE Nepal, 2016; MOE Sierra Leone, 2013) are guided with an assumption that the major goal of literacy is to prepare LDCs to become competitive knowledge economies.

The idea of bringing LDCs within the framework of the global economy started during the SAP in the 1980s. The deficit perspective injected by the European colonizers was institutionalized during the SAP period that not only slashed the budget for literacy programs but also created a new policy discourse that almost eliminated the importance of literacy from both national and international policy agendas. The main goal of SAP was to enable poor countries to repay their debt and insert their fragile economies to the new international economic order characterized as the competitive knowledge economy (Bonal, 2002; Carnoy, 1995). As per this goal, the request for the funding of every development programs required economic justification (World Bank, 1995); that is, to obtain SAP loans educational programs must show tangible economic benefits in their “cost-benefit analysis.” Since the investment in literacy did not show tangible economic returns, as Lind (2005) noted, literacy programs ceased to operate because of funding cuts both from the governments and the lenders. The SAP had adverse consequences on the economies of LDCs (Carnoy, 1995; McMichael, 2012).

Review of scholarly literature (Craig & Porter, 2003) shows that during and after the SAP, LDCs were neither able to have full participation in the global economy nor able to address the problems related to poverty, inequality, poor health, and lack of literacy. Those studies have identified several limitations of SAP such as privatization of government assets as well as budget cuts in public sectors such as education and health. Despite such research findings that consistently show these limitations the SAP have continuously guided educational policies of LDCs. For example, the Education Sector Plan of Sierra Leone for 2014 to 2018 “is fully aligned with . . . the Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers (PRSP)” (MOE Sierra Leone, 2013, p. 15) recommended by the World Bank. Similarly, the PRSP guidelines have continuously influenced Nepal’s education policies and practices after its Tenth Fiver Year Plan (NPC Nepal, 2002). It is important to note here that each country requesting concessional loans from the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund are required to prepare PRSPs as recommended by those financial institutions. Scholars (Craig & Porter, 2003) who examined the PRSP policies have found that the SAPs are reimplemented in the name of PRSP.

Analysis of Sierra Leone’s Education Sector Plan (MOE Sierra Leone, 2013) is particularly important not only for understanding how supranational organizations such as the World Bank shape loan recipient countries’ educational policies and plans but also for understanding how they constrain the understanding of literacy to mere reading abilities. For example, the Plan (MOE Sierra Leone, 2013) argues that “illiteracy” (which was found about 58% in 2010) is “a hindrance to the socioeconomic improvement” hence it urges the government should establish literacy centers “to ensure an increasing number of adults learn to read” (p. 30). The report further argues that “knowledge of science [which it aims to impart through literacy programs] is essential for survival in the modern world” and helping the country “to achieve middle income status by 2035” (MOE Sierra Leone, 2013, p. 42).

While these policy documents highlight the desire for equipping people with scientific, industrial, and technological knowledge and skills, the importance of literacy is not taken for empowering local communities, especially underprivileged groups of people such as women; rather the major aim of literacy initiatives has been for “achieving lower middle-income economy status by 2025” (MOE Ethiopia, 2015, p. 19). In light of the analytical framework presented above, it is important to note here that even though literacy is inevitable for the economic development of any country, the way it is understood in the LDCs’ policy contexts—that is, catching up with other developed countries of the West by immersing them in the globalized economy—is an outcome of deficit thinking. Given the protracted problems and challenges of LDCs the idea of benefitting from the “globalized economy” may not be helpful unless a strong national economy is created first. In this respect, the article argues that the ambition of immersing LDCs into the competitive global knowledge economy (OECD, 1996; World Bank, 2003, 2018b) promotes a deficit perspective.

Moreover, as the Education Sector Plan of Sierra Leone demonstrates, in LDCs, literacy is continuously understood as an ability to read and write but not as a continuum and a more comprehensive vision of education that can help solve multifarious problems faced by LDC people. As noted by some scholars (Preece & Hoppers, 2011), no attempts at national levels are made to provide functional as well as critical adult education opportunities (Freire, 1970) to those marginalized adults. Those adults need a more comprehensive approach to adult education and literacy that helps enhance their capabilities so as to enable them to critically analyze their day-to-day problems and find solutions through local means. In this respect, the article argues that taking literacy as a tool for creating a competitive knowledge economy is neither a realistic nor a contextually suitable approach for LDCs.

Standardized Assessment

Analysis of policy documents shows that the latest version of the deficit perspective in education started after the 1990s when large-scale international assessments—such as the International Adult Literacy Survey (IALS), the Programme for the International Assessment of Adult Competencies (PIAAC), the Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS), and the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA)—originated in the OECD contexts started to be a global phenomenon shaping the educational systems of LDCs through a standardized testing regime (Addey, Sellar, Steiner-Khamsi, Lingard, & Verger, 2017). While those assessments including UNESCO’s Literacy Assessment and Monitoring Program (LAMP) may have some merits in comparing LDCs, “measurement of literacy” within this testing regime has promoted a deficit perspective. Supranational organizations such as the OECD (OECD, 2016) and the World Bank (World Bank, 2003, 2018b) are recommending that the national governments of LDCs to follow the global testing regime. Analysis of national policy reports shows that LDC governments have institutionalized the testing regime not only at national level but also at regional level by establishing institutions such as the Southern and Eastern Africa Consortium for Monitoring Educational Quality (known as SACMEQ). In the context of the SDGs 2030 (United Nations, 2015) and Education 2030 (UNESCO, 2015a), new programs called PISA for Development (OECD, 2016), Assessment for Learning (A4L), Skills Towards Employability and Productivity (STEP) and Early Grade Reading Assessment (EGRA) are recommended for measuring the learning outcomes of LDC people (see World Bank, 2018b).

As a major objective of the testing regime is recommending developing countries and international educational partners to make educational plans and policies based on statistical evidences, those programs such as PISA for Development will be used to allocate funding for the educational programs designed to achieve the SDGs. While the results of the large-scale assessments are helpful for measuring the competitiveness of the Western countries characterized as knowledge-based economies (OECD, 1996; World Bank, 2003, 2018b) this kind of testing regime is not suitable for LDCs whose economies are based on agriculture, animal husbandry, such as herding (Pitikoe, 2017) and other local traditional and indigenous practices. An in-depth ethnographic study undertaken by Maddox (2014) to explore how the LAMP operated in Mongolia identified limitations of large-scale literacy assessment. Maddox found that some of the test items used in the LAMP were originally developed for the IALS for use in the OECD countries, which failed to test the real ability of Mongolian people but helped legitimize the deficit.

Maddox indicates that the international large scale assessment regime stems from psychometrics, a branch of positivist “science concerned with evaluating the attributes of psychological tests” (Furr & Bacharach, 2014, p. 9), which helps “quantify inter-individual or intra-individual differences” (p. 7) without considering the social contexts (Crossley, 2010) responsible for bringing such differences. Similarly, another study conducted by Serpell and Simatende (2016) to understand how such tests are perceived by Zambian parents, teachers, and administrators found that as such tests were “developed by Western authors based on research with Western subjects and addressed to Western audiences” (p. 2) they “fail to respond to some enduring cultural preoccupations of many parents, educators and policy makers” (p. 1). The analysis of recent policy documents (MOE Ethiopia, 2015; MOE Nepal, 2016; MOE Sierra Leone, 2013) reveals that the testing regime has been the de facto educational strategy for LDCs. For example, Nepal has standardized student evaluation by undertaking National Assessment of Student Achievement (NASA) for aligning learning assessment system with international assessments systems such as PISA (MOE Nepal, 2016).

Similarly, the idea of quality education in countries like Ethiopia is understood in terms of the average score of students learning achievements. While such scores might give some insights for the purpose of making comparisons, the standardized testing conducted at the national level cannot explain why certain groups of people (e.g., those speaking marginalized languages as their mother tongue and those in abject poverty) fail to achieve higher scores. It is important to note that the Action Plan for the Education Sector Development Programme 2016-2020 (MOE Ethiopia, 2015) aims to assess “all national examinations to ensure compliance with new curriculum content materials” (p. 20). However, as noted above, this initiative will not help much without contextualizing the curricula and the contents of instructional materials to the local realities. As the education policies of the countries like Ethiopia follow a deficit perspective the increasing use of technology (see MOE Ethiopia, 2015) and English as the medium of instruction are seen as major solutions of their educational problems, without considering the issue of digital divide that perpetuates the status quo.

A key message of this analysis is that the testing regime—in which results are drawn on average scores and rankings to construct political narratives that legitimize reform or the status quo between high and low achievers—stems from the deficit perspective. The focus is always on ranking LDCs in terms of their educational performances and opening “window for policy reform” (Addey et al., 2017, p. 439). As LDC people are tested on educational contents that are beyond their community contexts (Maddox, 2014; Serpell & Simatende, 2016) there is always a high chance that they perform low, which is interpreted as their deficits. The potential limitation of testing tools used in such assessments are not questioned; rather the performance difference between LDCs and the rest of the world is assumed as the problem, which becomes justification for recommending new educational policy reforms.

Discussion and Conclusion

A key finding of the analysis of policy documents produced after the 1990s is that literacy policies formulated by both global organizations and LDC governments have aimed at providing temporary patches to fill the deficit rather than finding sustainable solutions of their problems. LDCs are compared with Western countries in terms of literacy, enrollment, and dropout rates and the former are positioned at the bottom of international benchmark. Based on those statistical evidences, interpretations are made to show a number of deficits at individual, societal, and national levels. Those policies appear to be ideologically correct but, as they are not based on the contextual realities of LDC people and their communities, they fail to address their needs and potentials. This analysis found several limitations of such comparative analyses and the generalized (or decontextualized) interpretations of such findings.

In light of the analysis presented above, this article appeals that more researches are required not only to critique the deficit perspective but also for developing literacy policy and programs through an asset perspective. Some of the questions useful for this kind of research may include the following: Do the contents of the literacy programs begin with what the people of a particular community already know? Do the literacy learners feel that the literacy programs in which they participate value their knowledge, skills, and experiences that they bring from their families and communities? For this, rather than focusing on the potential differences between LDC people and their Western counterparts, literacy programs should view the families of “working-class or poor communities . . . in terms of their strengths and resources as their defining pedagogical characteristic” (Gonzalez et al., 2005, p. x).

In this respect, LDC people (who are considered illiterate simply because they are not able to verbalize written words or not able to express themselves through written script), their experiences, their knowledge, and skills required for undertaking traditional practices and the strategies they have used to sustain their lifeworld should be taken as the unrecognized repositories of situated knowledge (Lave & Wenger, 1991). Literacy programs informed by an asset perspective of literacy should begin from such unrecognized repositories of situated knowledge. Given the diversity in LDC’s cultures and languages it is not always easy to develop literacy programs in the native languages. For example, Afaan Oromo (spoken mostly in Ethiopia and Kenya) has limited alphabets and complex word formation, whereas Amharic and Tigrigna have many alphabets but short words. Policy makers should take those issues into consideration while developing literacy programs. Given this complexity developing literacy programs through an asset perspective is not an easy task, however, it is extremely important to choose this direction to address the contextual needs and potentials.

The asset perspective of literacy should challenge and revert the deficit perspective of literacy to value people’s capacity to communicate, to rationalize and think critically as the primary building blocks of literacy programs. Looking through the Freirean lens, an asset perspective of literacy can be conceptualized as a process of conscientization (Freire, 1970) that reorients literacy practices to the cultural contexts of the learners. The acquisition of skills and understanding developed through this process should “enable individuals to recognise and challenge the unequal political, social, cultural, economic contexts which govern their lives” (Lonsdale & McCurry, 2004, p. 8). This broader framework of literacy allows local indigenous practices, traditional occupational practices, household choruses, and traditional practices of treating patients by using herbal medicines to be included in the literacy programs.

The asset perspective of literacy takes the local culture and the idea of the lifeworld as a major point of departure from the deficit perspective of education. Unlike the deficit perspective that tends to see LDCs’ literacy practices through the Western gaze of human capital rationale, the asset perspective of education and research should focus on “the multiple and contingent relations and practices of people in situated lifeworld contexts, and the meaning and values they construct therein” (Zipin, 2009, p. 319). As Zipin notes “complex knowledge and expertise emerge in family and community resistances, resiliencies and other creating copings with difficult material and cultural conditions of poverty and otherness” (p. 322).

It is hard to find a perfect example of an asset-based literacy programs especially in LDCs because, as noted above, their educational policies and practices are shaped by educational agendas conceived at supranational spaces. An example of asset perspective in literacy could be drawn from Tanzania, where Julius Nyerere, who became the first president of the Republic of Tanzania in 1964, emphasized the importance of literacy for agricultural development.

. . . using a big hoe instead of a small one; using a plow pulled by oxen instead of an ordinary hoe; the use of fertilizers; the use of insecticides; knowing the right crop for a particular season or soil; choosing good seeds for planting; knowing the right time for planting, weeding, etc.; all these things show the use of knowledge and intelligence. (Nyerere, 1968, p. 31)

During the time of Nyerere Tanzania was regarded as one of the most successful countries not only in increasing literacy rate but also having a more comprehensive approach in defining the purpose of adult education and literacy (Preece, 2009). While about “90% of the Tanzanians above 10 years of age were illiterate in 1962” it “decreased to 27% in 1977” (Wedin, 2008, p. 756). Nyerere (2004) viewed that literacy should

help men [sic] think clearly; it must enable them to examine the possible alternative course of action; to make a choice between those alternatives in keeping with their own purposes; and it must equip them with the ability to translate their decisions into reality. (p. 134)

Some of the elements of asset perspective—such as linking “numeracy and literacy skills to livelihoods” (MOE Ethiopia, 2015, p. 17), “creating a learning society” (p. 36), “expanding parental education through exercising indigenous knowledge” (p. 79), making adult literacy a vehicle for social transformation and the establishment of “Community Learning Centers” (MOE Nepal, 2016, p. 53)—have been mentioned in the policy reports but a critical analysis of such documents shows that no concrete actions are taken to actually integrate the elements of an asset perspective in educational policies and action plans. Rather, such policy rhetoric is mostly connected with the idea of “illiteracy” (understood as one’s inability to read and write) among adults, which is problematic for developing literacy policy through an asset perspective.

Finally, it is also important to note here that one of the largest global campaigns for literacy know as Experimental World Literacy Program 1967-1974 was launched by UNESCO and UNDP. As Gillette (1987) notes the program was initiated in the context of decolonization, the growing demand for basic education, and “the persistent perception of education as a universal human rights” (p. 199) hence had an ambitious goal of creating a literate world. However, a critical assessment of the program undertaken in 1976 (see UNESCO, 1976) concluded that it was a failed experiment. One of the reasons of this failure was that there was too much emphasis on how the literacy skills on 3R (Reading, Writing, and Arithmetic) could increase economic growth. As Gillette (1987, p. 205) stresses when this “program was being formulated, a developmentalist (or, more crudely, technocratic) approach to economic growth” prevailed in international circles. UNESCO (1976) concluded that “functional literacy work cannot be designed from outside, in accordance with the mechanistic approaches to traditional pedagogy” (Gillette, 1987, p. 210). The program used “a certain model of socioeconomic development which, while dominant in certain countries, is far from universally accepted” (p. 214).

To conclude, in the context of the SDGs the international community has recognized EFA including adult literacy as a fundamental human right: we “reaffirm the vision and political will reflected in numerous international and regional³ human rights treaties that stipulate the right to education and its interrelation with other human rights” (UNESCO, 2015a, p. 5). International community has declared a new educational goal for 2016-2030 period: “Ensure inclusive and equitable quality education and promote lifelong learning opportunities for all” (United Nations, 2015). Until the declaration of the SDGs 2030 and Education 2030, lifelong learning had never been proposed as a global goal for education. This is a turning point in the history of international education because in the past it was the notion of EFA, basically universal primary education (MDGs #2) and basic literacy (EFA Goal #4) that dominated the educational policy discourses of LDCs. Hence, it is important to explore what understanding of literacy is promoted in the current discourse of lifelong learning and what implications such understanding might have for LDCs. Further studies can be directed to explore whether there have been any consecrated efforts toward the development of contextually relevant adult literacy policy and programs for LDCs as well as the marginalized communities of other countries such as Maori in New Zealand.

Similarly, since the independence of several LDCs during the 1950s and 1960s there has been continuous advocacy for LDCs’ “cultures, traditions, values and ways of life” through education (see UNESCO, 1998). However, there is a dearth of critical studies to understand whether there have been any initiatives at the community level to implement such visions of education. As the case of Sierra Leone demonstrates (where the national literacy programs helped only 7.4% youths and adults to be able to read and write) national literacy programs (MOE Sierra Leone, 2013) have continuously failed to reach the underprivileged groups of people. In this respect, it is important to examine why literacy programs have continuously failed to enable adults even to read and write. Is it because the contents of literacy classes are not according to the need, interest and contextual realities of them? This line of inquiry can highlight community-based development initiatives as well as exemplary works done by local communities and their indigenous leaders toward promoting asset view of literacy.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

The author would like to thank Dr. Marlene Asselin, Faculty of Education, University of British Columbia, for her valuable support and critical feedback on the earlier version of the manuscript. Acknowledgements also go to several anonymous reviewers for their critical questions and comments.

Declaration of Conlicting Interests

The author declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author received financial support from the Canadian Organization for Development through Education (CODE) for the research of this article.

Notes

ORCID iD

Kapil Dev Regmi

Author Biography

Dr. Kapil Dev Regmi is a lecturer in the Department of Educational Studies, University of British Columbia. His research focuses on critical development issues facing the most impoverished nations of the world known as LDCs. He has published several peer-reviewed papers that inform policy makers working at supranational organisations such as the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), the World Bank and UNESCO regarding the development of contextually specific educational plans and policies for underprivileged people and their communities.

References

Addey

Sellar

Steiner-Khamsi

Lingard

Verger

(2017). The rise of international large-scale assessments and rationales for participation. Compare: A Journal of Comparative and International Education, 47, 434-452. doi:10.1080/03057925.2017.1301399

Aikman

Robinson-Pant

McGrath

Jere

C. M.

Cheffy

Themelis

Rogers

(2016). Challenging deficit discourses in international education and development. Compare: A Journal of Comparative and International Education, 46, 314-334. doi:10.1080/03057925.2016.1134954

Asselin

Doiron

(2013). Linking literacy and libraries in global communities. New York, NY: Routledge.

Ballantyne

(2011). Paper, pen, and print: The transformation of the Kai Tahu knowledge order. Comparative Studies in Society and History, 53, 232-260.

Becker

G. S.

(1975). Human capital: A theoretical and empirical analysis with special reference to education. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Bélanger

(2011). Literacy and lifelong learning. In Jarvis

(Ed.), The Routledge international handbook of lifelong learning (pp. 80-90). New York, NY: Routledge.

Bonal

(2002). Plus ca change . . . the world bank global education policy and the post-washington consensus. International Studies in Sociology of Education, 12, 3-22. doi:10.1080/09620210200200080

Carnoy

(1995). Structural adjustment and the changing face of education. International Labour Review, 134, 653-673.

Chen

Goodson

Acosta

(2015). Blending health literacy with an English as a second language curriculum: A systematic literature review. Journal of Health Communication, 20, 101-111. doi:10.1080/10810730.2015.1066467

10.

Coombs

P. H.

(1968). The world educational crisis: A system analysis. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press. Retrieved from http://www.unesco.org/education/nfsunesco/pdf/COOMBS_E.PDF

11.

Craig

Porter

(2003). Poverty reduction strategy papers: A new convergence. World Development, 31, 53-69. doi:10.1016/S0305-750X(02)00147-X

12.

Crawford-Garrett

(2016). Negotiating scripts, humanizing practice: Remaking methods instruction in an era of standardization. Action in Teacher Education, 38, 240-258. doi:10.1080/01626620.2016.1194782

13.

Crossley

(2010). Context matters in educational research and international development: Learning from the small states experience. Prospects, 40, 421-429.

14.

Freire

(1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed ( Ramo

M. B.

, Trans., 30th ed.). New York, NY: Continuum International Publishing Group.

15.

Furr

R. M.

Bacharach

V. R.

(2014). Psychometrics: An introduction. New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.

16.

Gillette

(1987). The Experimental World Literacy Program. In Arnove

R. F.

Graff

H. J.

(Eds.), National literacy campaigns: Historical and comparative perspectives (pp. 197-217). Boston, MA: Springer.

17.

Gonzalez

Moll

L. C.

Amanti

(Eds.). (2005). Funds of knowledge: Theorizing practices in households, communities, and classrooms. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

18.

Jarvis

(2006). Towards a comprehensive theory of human learning. New York, NY: Routledge.

19.

Lave

Wenger

(1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

20.

Least Developed Countries. (2018). Economic Analysis and Policy Division. Retrieved from https://www.un.org/development/desa/en/about/desa-divisions/policy-analysis.html

21.

Lind

(2005). ABLE policies in an international perspective. In Osman

(Ed.), Achieving education for all: The case for non-formal education (pp. 47-68). London, England: Commonwealth Secretariat.

22.

Lonsdale

McCurry

(2004). Literacy in the new millennium. Adelaide, Australia: Australian Council for Educational Research.

23.

Maddox

(2014). Globalising assessment: An ethnography of literacy assessment, camels and fast food in the Mongolian Gobi. Comparative Education, 50, 474-489. doi:10.1080/03050068.2013.871440

24.

McMichael

(2012). Development and social change: A global perspective. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

25.

Merriam

S. B.

Kim

Y. S.

(2008). Non-western perspectives on learning and knowing. New Directions for Adult & Continuing Education, 119, 71-81.

26.

MOE Ethiopia. (2015). Action plan for the education sector development programme 2016-2020. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia: Author.

27.

MOE Nepal. (2016). School sector development plan 2016-2023. Kathmandu, Nepal: Author.

28.

MOE Sierra Leone. (2013). Education Sector Plan 2014-2018. Sierra Leone: Author.

29.

NPC Nepal. (2002). The tenth five year plan of Nepal 2002-2007. Kathmandu, Nepal: Author.

30.

Nyerere

(1968). The Arusha declaration 1967. In Ujamaa: Essays on socialism (pp. 13-37). Dar es Salaam, Tanzania: Oxford University Press.

31.

Nyerere

(2004). Nyerere on education: Selected essays and speeches. Dar es Salaam, Tanzania: Mwalimu Nyerere Foundation.

32.

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (1996). Lifelong learning for all: Meeting of the Education Committee at ministerial level, 16-17 January 1996. Paris, France: Author.

33.

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2016). PISA for development. Retrieved from http://www.oecd.org/pisa/aboutpisa/pisafordevelopment.htm

34.

Parry

(1999). Language and literacy in African contexts. Language Matters, 30, 113-130. doi:10.1080/10228199908566148

35.

Pitikoe

(2017). Basotho herders learn through culture and social interaction. Learning, Culture and Social Interaction, 13, 104-112. doi:10.1016/j.lcsi.2017.03.003

36.

Preece

(2009). Lifelong learning and development: A southern perspective. New York, NY: Continuum.

37.

Preece

Hoppers

C. O.

(2011). Lifelong learning in sub-Saharan Africa. International Journal of Lifelong Education, 30, 1-3.

38.

Qadir

(1982). UN conference on the least developed countries: Neither breakthrough nor breakdown. Third World Quarterly, 4, 125-143.

39.

Regmi

K. D.

(2015). Can lifelong learning be the post-2015 agenda for the least developed countries? International Journal of Lifelong Education, 34, 551-568. doi:10.1080/02601370.2015.1070209

40.

Regmi

K. D.

(2017). Lifelong learning in least developed countries: The case of Nepal (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from https://open.library.ubc.ca/cIRcle/collections/ubctheses/24/items/1.0347348

41.

Serpell

Simatende

(2016). Contextual responsiveness: An enduring challenge for educational assessment in Africa. Journal of Intelligence, 4(1), 3. Retrieved from https://www-mdpi-com-s.web.bisu.edu.cn/2079-3200/4/1/3

42.

Silver

(2013). Aboriginal adult education: Combating poverty and colonization. In Silver

(Ed.), Moving forward, giving back: Transformative Aboriginal adult education (pp. 1-16). Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada: Fernwood.

43.

Ubah

C. N.

(1980). Western education in Africa: The Igbo experience, 1900-1960. Comparative Education Review, 24, 371-388.

44.

UNESCO. (1976). The experimental world literacy programme: A critical assessment. Retrieved from https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000016574

45.

UNESCO. (1990). World declaration on education for all: Framework for action to meet basic learning needs. Retrieved from http://www.unesco.org/education/pdf/JOMTIE_E.PDF

46.

UNESCO. (1998, April). The Durban statement of commitment. Paper presented at the 7th Conference of Ministries of Education of African Member States (MINEDAF VII), Durban, South Africa. Retrieved from http://www.unesco.org/education/pdf/durb_eng.pdf

47.

UNESCO. (2000). The Dakar framework for action: Education for all. Retrieved from https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000121147

48.

UNESCO. (2015a). Education 2030: Towards inclusive and equitable quality education and lifelong learning for all. France, Paris: Author.

49.

UNESCO. (2015b). Education for all global monitoring Report 2015: Achievement and challenges. Paris, France: Author.

50.

UNESCO Institute for Lifelong Learning. (2014). Midterm strategy 2014-2021: Laying foundations for equitable lifelong learning for all. Hamburg, Germany: Author.

51.

United Nations. (2015). Transforming our world: The 2030 agenda for sustainable development. Retrieved from https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/21252030%20Agenda%20for%20Sustainable%20Development%20web.pdf

52.

United Nations. (2018). Literacy for life: Shaping future agendas and education for democracy. Retrieved from http://undocs.org/A/73/292

53.

Valli

Stefanski

Jacobson

(2016). School-community partnership models: Implications for leadership. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 21, 31-49. doi:10.1080/13603124.2015.1124925

54.

Verger

Lubienski

Steiner-Khamsi

(Eds.). (2016). World yearbook of education 2016: The global education industry. New York, NY: Routledge.

55.

Wedin

. (2008). Literacy and power: The cases of Tanzania and Rwanda. International Journal of Educational Development, 28, 754-763. doi:10.1016/j.ijedudev.2007.09.006

56.

Wickens

C. M.

Sandlin

J. A.

(2007). Literacy for what? Literacy for whom? The politics of literacy education and neocolonialism in UNESCO- and World Bank-sponsored literacy programs. Adult Education Quarterly, 57, 275-292.

57.

World Bank. (1995). Priorities and strategies for education: A World Bank review. Washington, DC: Author.

58.

World Bank. (2003). Lifelong learning in the global knowledge economy: Challenges for developing countries. Washington, DC: Author.

59.

World Bank. (2018a). World Bank open data. Retrieved from https://data.worldbank.org/

60.

World Bank. (2018b). World Development Report: Learning to realize education’s promise. Washington, DC: Author.

61.

Yates

B. A.

(1984). Comparative education and the Third World: The nineteenth century revisited. Comparative Education Review, 28, 533-549.

62.

Yosso

T. J.

(2005). Whose culture has capital? A critical race theory discussion of community cultural wealth. Race Ethnicity and Education, 8, 69-91. doi:10.1080/1361332052000341006

63.

Zachariah

(1985). Lumps of clay and growing plants: Dominant metaphors of the role of education in the third world, 1950-1980. Comparative Education Review, 29, 1-21. doi:10.1086/446486

64.

Zipin

(2009). Dark funds of knowledge, deep funds of pedagogy: Exploring boundaries between lifeworlds and schools. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 30, 317-331. doi:10.1080/01596300903037044