Lifelong learning for social inclusion of ethnic minorities in Botswana

Abstract

In spite of its overall economic success, most citizens living in the remote areas of Botswana face poverty and are unemployed. The article argues that minority communities in remote areas are excluded because education programs use unfamiliar languages and de-contextualized curricula, there is no national qualifications framework to sufficiently recognize the prior learning experiences of minorities, and there is no state partnership with nongovernmental organizations in the delivery of education. Consequently, it suggests that the Government needs to deliver inclusive lifelong learning, endorse multiculturalism, create clear learning and qualification pathways, and collaborate with nongovernmental organizations in the delivery of minority education in Botswana.

Keywords

curriculum exclusion inclusion multiculturalism lifelong learning minorities

Introduction

The article explores how lifelong learning (LLL) could facilitate the social inclusion of remote ethnic minorities in Botswana. The 2009 Global Report on Adult Learning and Education (United Nations Organization for Education, Science and Culture (UNESCO), 2009) views learning as a fundamental human right and requires every child, youth, and adult to learn life skills to address personal, socio-cultural, political, environmental challenges in their local and global contexts. It argues that LLL empowers adults by providing them with skills to better their livelihoods as individuals, members of family, community, and society. It has the potential to reduce the negative impact of absolute and capacity poverty, reduces child mortality, curbs population growth, achieves gender equity, ensures peace, democracy, and improves lives (UNESCO, 2006).

Vocational skills increase employment competencies of youth and adults. Life skills programs enable adults to acquire appropriate self-defined values to deal with prevention of HIV/AIDS and other debilitating conditions (UNESCO, 2008). However, adult basic education delivery in Africa faces numerous challenges such as failure to redress gender inequality, poorly trained teachers, failure to address needs of socially and educationally disadvantaged people, and it receives low policy priority status in funding. Africa houses the world’s largest number of nonliterates and the poorest of the poor (Maruatona and Millican, 2010). LLL would help them to derive the fullest benefits of acquiring literacy, numeracy, and life skills for use in their home and work environments.

This article explores how Botswana could use LLL to facilitate enhanced social inclusion of ethnic minorities by delivering pro-poor and inclusive learning opportunities to mitigate their exclusion. First, it defines key concepts of LLL, social inclusion and exclusion. Second, it describes the socio-political and economic context of Botswana and notes that it has positioned itself as a ‘developmental state’ which is where the Government is intimately involved in the macro- and micro-economic planning in order to grow the economy (Marwala, 2006). Botswana has adopted a human capital theory that tolerates the exclusion of the poor. Ethnic minorities face economic exclusion, which manifests itself through their high exposure to poverty and unemployment. Third, it argues that ethnic minorities face social exclusion because of being required to use majority languages in learning contexts, they are not involved in the development of the curricula, there is no national qualifications and credit framework (NQCF) to recognize their prior learning, and there is no state commitment to collaborate with nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) to address the needs of minorities. Consequently, it suggests that Botswana needs to organize inclusive LLL programs, endorse multiculturalism to contextualize skills and knowledge, create a pro-poor and supportive qualification framework, and collaborate with NGOs to deliver quality LLL opportunities for minorities.

The concept of LLL

The provision of basic literacy, numeracy, and life skills is an essential impetus for Botswana to use LLL as a policy framework to sustain its development efforts. LLL, at times described as lifelong education, is complex to define categorically, but it denotes the totality of learning activities that occur in formal, nonformal, and informal contexts (Walters, 2001). Preece (2011) views lifelong education as a means to enable people to learn at different times, in different ways for different purposes at various stages of their lives and careers. She views it as instrumental in facilitating democratic citizenship, connecting individuals and groups to structures of social, political, and economic activities at both local and global contexts. Field (2003) describes LLL as a guiding principle for provision and participation across the full continuum of learning contexts. It is a life-wide human activity that occurs from birth to death, and it is essential for democratization and self-actualization (Kirby et al., 2010). LLL exists in different forms in all societies. Its benefits include assisting nations of the South to address micro issues such as continued subordination of women and children, unemployment, work instability, as well as macro issues of globalization. It imparts skills of critical thinking and active citizenship (Torres, 2003). Su (2009) argued that LLL enables human beings to act decisively in response to uncertainty and tumultuous socio-political changes. He observed that a learner needs to be a subject and active agent who is a self-authority on what and how to lean. It helps people to learn to re-learn throughout their lives, as part of the transition from agro-based to industrial society by those exposed to the use of Information and Communication Technologies (ICT).

However, its roles can be negative. For example, it can be used to pursue a neo-liberal human capital-driven agenda of deskilling workers through the adoption of technologies to enhance profitability resulting in massive worker retrenchments (Medel-Aňonuevo, 2003). Also, LLL can foster the falsehood of equating voting and market economy to democracy. Some skeptics view it as a functional technology that re-directs responsibility for learning from the state to individuals who are required to acquire technological skills to remain relevant and alive to the needs of industry and not their personal development (Biesta, 2005). It therefore needs to be critically interrogated to justify its delivery for transformation, challenging social exclusion and encouraging active citizenship (Gouthro, 2007).

LLL in Botswana like in other developing countries lacks conceptual clarity in terms of policy, legal and regulatory framework, and programs. LLL, on the one hand, can assume a transformative perspective where it is intended to facilitate deliberative democracy and empower participants (Freire, 1990). Preece (2009) noted that transformative LLL for the South needs to transcend the discourses of profit, competitiveness, and marketization and be centered on issues of democratization, social justice, human rights, and upholding human dignity. It should work with learners to uphold the value of difference as opposed to rejecting them. In spite of this potential to transform, it can serve a hegemonic role where the state uses it to consolidate its control over the curricula and achieve ends not intended to facilitate democratic citizenship. I have argued elsewhere that the endorsement of LLL in some developing nations facilitates hegemonic control in that it serves as a façade to create the impression that the state pretends to provide learning opportunities for all, yet in essence it is intended to protect the privileges of the ruling elite (Maruatona, 2011). Such governments resist the effort to establish cross-cutting delivery alliances and partnerships with civil society and NGOs (UNESCO, 2009). However, Botswana can benefit from an LLL policy if it fosters programs that facilitate democracy, multiculturalism, and decentralization, and create an engaged civil society for social inclusion and active citizenship (Crowther et al., 2005). Botswana needs to explore ways to use LLL principles to minimize the exclusion of ethnic minorities and enhance social equity and cultural inclusivity.

Concepts of social inclusion and exclusion

Social inclusion denotes creating an enabling environment where all citizens fare better and no one is left to fall too far behind and the economy works for everyone. Saraceno (1997) argued that it can be achieved when all citizens have the opportunity and resources necessary to participate fully in essential economic and socio-cultural activities considered as a societal norm. Inclusion demands goals and policies that avoid separating citizenry and advocates for everyone to live with purpose, dignity, and satisfaction (Boushey et al., 2007). Social inclusion implies creating a society in which all citizens have the opportunity to participate fully in all essential aspects of life. It is about recognizing diversity and engendering a feeling of belonging by increasing opportunities for social equity and enhancing participation for all sections of a diverse population. Its indicators include assessing the extent to which low-paid workers fall behind the rest of the workforce and to which ethnic minorities in the rural areas fall behind other rural and urban dwellers in terms of wages, income, and access to basic services such as health, education, housing, skills, advancement, and other opportunities (Sen, 2000). Morris (2001) describes it as enabling citizens to engage in normal life activities such as having a reasonable standard of living, being secure, and engaging in socially valuable activities. Inclusion can result from efforts such as ensuring that all can learn, work, engage, and develop a voice resulting in creating an inclusive society characterized by cross-societal dialogue and collaboration. Inclusive educational programs would assist individuals to attain qualifications, employability, and essential livelihood skills (Schreiber-Barsch, 2009). However, in her analysis of success stories of learning communities in the European region, Schreiber-Barsch noted that there is room for social exclusion as the tendency is for those who have higher qualifications or education levels and better employment opportunities to participate more in adult and further education. Invariably, inclusion is detracted by heightened possibilities for the disadvantaged to be excluded.

Buchanan (2007) defines social exclusion as a state where individuals or groups are wholly or partially excluded from participating in their society by low income and constricted access to employment, social benefits, and services. This type of exclusion goes beyond lack of access to finance, exposure to poverty, and need, and extends to lack of access to civil, political, social rights and opportunities by women and ethnic minorities. Saraceno (1997) observed that it leads to a situation where people suffer a series of problems such as unemployment, discrimination, low income, skills, or being born into a position where parents are of low skills, poor housing and health, which negatively influence one’s future prospects.

Morris (2001) equates exclusion to being shut out from society. Social exclusion also manifests itself in the form of one being geographically excluded.

As used here, ethnic minorities refer to subordinate groups whose members wield significantly less control over their lives compared to their counterparts from dominant ethnic groups. This is not only restricted to numerical minorities; it is about a group that experiences limited access to services such as education, health care, wealth, and social capital (Cleaver, 2005). The culture of social exclusion occurs when the political economy is driven by wage labor exploitation and profiteering, there are persistently high levels of unemployment, and the urban and rural poor are resigned to their marginal position, thereby testifying that exclusion is a social process not a group trait (Labonte, 2004). In Botswana, ethnic minorities face various forms of cultural, social, and economic exclusion.

Social inclusion and exclusion in Botswana

At Independence in 1966, Botswana was one of the world’s poorest nations. Like most nascent African nations, it had neither an inclusive vision nor a clear development strategy. Development in Botswana was largely driven by the desire of the leadership to achieve social unity and cohesion through the use of some subtle diplomacy such as adopting one national language, in the process downplaying national linguistic heterogeneity (Maruatona, 2002). Social cohesion was achieved to the detriment of ethnic minorities. This failed to promote genuine liberation since it enabled the ruling elite to substitute colonial domination with a neo-colonial administration (Diop, 1999). To date, Botswana has experienced phenomenal economic growth to an upper middle–income state, thereby becoming one of the most prosperous nations in Africa. However, this prosperity is characterized by social and economic success alongside visible forms of exclusion based on ethnicity, culture, economic disparities, and social inequality.

The preliminary results of the 2011 Population Census show that Botswana has an estimated population of 2.1 million inhabitants. The population varies considerably in terms of their ethnic affiliation, geographical locations, and access to services. For example, the 2011 Population indicators estimated Botswana’s rural population at 40.4% (World Bank, 2011). Rural populations are defined as people living in the rural areas and surviving on different forms of agricultural activities. In terms of languages, 70% of the population speaks Setswana (the national language) while 30% of the population speaks a variety of minority languages. The Government to date has systemically excluded ethnic minorities by failing to develop an inclusive national language policy. Since Independence, Botswana has recognized English and Setswana as the Official and National Language respectively, replacing other languages without a policy framework. This leads to social exclusion of non-Setswana speakers. Language embodies people’s identity and self-expression (Maruatona, 2011). Those who use Setswana as their mother tongue experience varied levels of social inclusion, while those who speak other languages experience social exclusion as their languages are prohibited in schools and the Government sponsored national adult literacy program.

Politically, Botswana has always upheld the concept of a multiparty system. However, the ruling Botswana Democratic Party won all the successive elections since Independence, which renders the state a de facto one-party system. The ruling elite has taken advantage of weak opposition to concentrate on consolidating its economic interests, such as advancing the private enterprise system and making all efforts to attract direct foreign investment (FDI) (Youngman, 2002). The weak opposition does not motivate the state to develop a transformative LLL policy, which enables it to continue to benefit from illiteracy to enjoy massive political support in the rural areas and its continued stranglehold on power.

On the positive side, Botswana has made commendable efforts in the delivery of basic services such as social safety nets for the very poor and elderly, food for the malnourished, reasonable access to portable water, health services within 8 km radius, and an 81% literacy rate by 2003, and access to basic education for almost all school going children (Republic of Botswana and United Nations Development Program (UNDP), 2011). Consequently, Botswana has earned considerable international acclaim because of its prudent physical management, transparency, and democracy, which in theory could present opportunities for all citizens to enhance their engagement in national development. However, these benefits have been skewed in favor of the political elite, especially from the majority culture, thereby perpetrating social exclusion of ethnic minorities. Over and above, the state has drifted away from its initial welfare policies of the 1970s and 1980s, which emphasized the delivery of clean water, education, and health services. From the late 1990s to date, it has enforced neo-liberal free market capitalism guided by human capital theory, profiteering, and balancing the budget and reducing expenditure on essential services, which exacerbates the exclusion of the poor in remote areas (Maruatona, 2011). The poor depend on unsustainable handout from the state and safety nets. For example, the state re-introduced school fees in secondary schools and demanded payment for health services except for sexual and reproductive health services. The state heeded International Monetary Fund (IMF) advice to be more efficient in its provision of services by cutting down expenditure on social services (IMF, 2012). Unfortunately, these decisions lead to further exclusion of ethnic minorities.

Poverty and social exclusion

Botswana’s economy was very weak in the 1960s, but it has expanded rapidly to qualify it as an upper middle–income country. Its 2011, gross domestic product (GDP) per capita is estimated at US$16,300 (Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), 2012). Major investment services rank Botswana as the best credit risk in Africa (IMF, 2012). This phenomenal growth is attributable to the discovery and exploitation of mineral wealth, especially diamonds. However, this growth has been accompanied by income inequality and poverty in peri-urban and rural areas. Overall, there has been a relative decline in the ratios of people living in poverty from 47% in 1993/1994 to 30.6% in 2002/2003, and it is estimated to have declined again to 23% in 2009 (Republic of Botswana and UNDP, 2011).

Although there has been some progress between 1980 and 2010, income inequality is still evident because resource distribution is skewed in favor of a few, particularly in urban centers. For example, Botswana’s Gini coefficient is 0.63, and this is one of the highest levels of income inequality in the World since it exceeds the average level of 0.3 or 0.4, which represents an ideal distribution. Good (2008) noted that the gap between the top and bottom deciles was 77.7% making its income differentials the third highest in Africa. Poverty was more prevalent in rural areas, where 60% of the poor and 70% of the very poor female-headed households lived. The 2002/2003 Household Income and Expenditure Survey (HIES) results reflect a continued disparity in income distribution, between cities/towns and rural areas, for example, 30.6% of the population lived below Poverty Datum Line (PDL)—10.6% in cities and towns, 25.4% in urban villages, compared to 44.8% in rural areas. Social vulnerability is attributed to such factors as high HIV and AIDS prevalence rate. Botswana is at the epicenter of HIV infections with a national prevalence rate of 17.6% in 2008. It also faces harsh climatic conditions, incessant drought spells, and climate change (Republic of Botswana and UNDP, 2011).

Poverty and vulnerability in Botswana are most marked in remote districts populated by ethnic minorities such as Kweneng West, Ngamiland West, Ghanzi, and Kgalagadi North, which recorded poverty incidences of 48.6%, 47.3%, 35.7%, and 31.2%, respectively, in 2009/2010 (Statistics Botswana, 2011). In spite of that, it is difficult to systematically discuss rural poverty among minorities because poverty data are not collected on the basis of ethnicities. However, it can be noted that the San (indigenous ethnic community) are exposed to more incidences of poverty than other communities. The state has displaced them from their ancestral lands under the pretext of intending to re-settle and ‘develop’ them. Their relocation furthered their social subordination, exploitation, and discrimination, and it deprived them of meeting their basic survival needs. They lack access to fertile land, income, education, and autonomous political organizations. The relocation resulted in a very expensive legal battle with the Government. The San received international aid from Survival International to restore their right to occupy the Central Kalahari Game Reserve (CKGR). The San won the case at the High Court and were granted the right to occupy their ancestral lands and to receive some game hunting licenses (Good, 2008).

Unemployment in Botswana

Unemployment in Botswana is estimated at 19.6% of the labor force up from 17.6% in 2006. The rates are particularly high among the youth (Republic of Botswana and UNDP, 2011). In addition, the Botswana: Millennium Development Goals Status Report indicates that 19% of the population, particularly in rural areas, depends on various types of social services for their livelihood. It should be noted that most ethnic minorities and remote area dwellers have not enjoyed the benefit of dropping unemployment rate; they also lack substantive access to gainful employment.

The main weakness of the statistics is that they do not disaggregate these remote settlements, which gives an erroneous impression that remote area dwellers also benefited from the national decline in unemployment. Consequently, there is need to document how poverty, economic exclusion, and unemployment affect ethnic minorities (Maruatona, 2006). High rates of unemployment in rural areas have led to intensive rural–urban migration involving people from remote areas migrating to towns without skills to secure decent jobs in towns. Unemployment therefore is also higher in the rural and peri-urban areas compared to cities and towns. The ruling elite are not capable of instituting appropriate measures in place to empower citizens living in remote areas to positively shape their livelihoods (Chau and Yu, 2001; Morris, 2001). In addition to unemployment, ethnic minorities face exclusion because of the language used in classes and the unrepresentative curricula.

Language, curriculum, and state hegemony

Provision of transformational LLL requires a clear vision and building of appropriate structures to facilitate social and educational equity. This requires the use of multiple languages and the participation of all sections of society in developing the curriculum. However, in Botswana, Setswana and English are used as exclusive national and official languages, which lead to cultural exclusion of ethnic minorities (Maruatona, 2011). Adults and children coming from minority communities are not fluent in writing and reading any of the two languages. This renders such learners to be excluded because the ‘foreign languages’ impede their learning.

The use of English and Setswana languages invariably bestows social prestige and honor on their original speakers. Their use in schools and Government documents privilege their native speakers over minorities. This process becomes hegemonic to the extent that the Government uses the acquisition of carefully selected hard and soft skills to assimilate minorities and indirectly ‘pressure’ them to abandon their cultural identity. The state achieves this hegemony by delivering social service policies that coordinate investment plans and engaging in institution building to promote growth and development. All of these facilitate hegemony by enabling the state to fuse itself into the society and posture as a consensus builder that serves all socio-economic interests equally. This is an indicator that Botswana is a developmental state. Taylor (2012) argues that it is characterized by a determined developmental elite; relative autonomy; a powerful, competent and insulated bureaucracy; a weak and subordinated civil society; the effective management of nonstate economic interests and legitimacy and performance.

Hegemony refers to where the state attempts to universalize certain ruling class ideas while simultaneously shaping and limiting minority discourses. State hegemony assumes both a coercive (force) and consensual form (persuasion) (Apple, 2009; Gramsci, 1971; McLeran, 1995). Gramsci (1971) argues that hegemony plays a dual role of enabling the state to present inequality as a natural phenomenon and causes the poor to give consent to the general direction given by the elite. However, Kane (2005) observed that beyond state attempts to naturalize oppression, education and all forms of intellectualism have the potential to enable people to unveil this ideological manipulation to overcome alienation and creates a culture where all members participate as self-conscious subjects. Hegemony therefore cannot just be implanted; it has to be nurtured and maintained; it represents power as used in positive and negative ways. In Botswana, state power is used negatively when the dominant elite use its language to impose their culture and worldviews on minorities (Apple, 2008; Maruatona 2006).

Minorities therefore feel persuaded to tolerate hegemonic pressure because they feel they are being exposed to what Bourdieu (1993) refers to as ‘cultural capital’ (inherited cultural practices converted into social resources such as wealth and power). In Botswana, the languages used in education serve as the ruling elite mechanism to distribute unequal cultural capital and power relations. Inversely, the use of a national language stifles cultural development of other languages, and the curriculum content primarily covers life experiences among the majority culture, thereby reinforcing the exclusion of ethnic minorities (Youngman, 2002). The ruling elite facilitate hegemonic control by having an upper hand over the selection of educational content and modes of delivery. Williams (2011) observed that in places such as Botswana where the education is controlled by the state, learning infantilizes minorities by minimizing their abilities to utilize their adult freedoms and question their capacities to independently make decisions about their future. This enables the state to use access to such educational services to exercise a subtle form of hegemonic control that is not physical but has the same negative effects. For example, the state discourages the use of minority languages such as Sebirwa, Ikalanga, Herero, Naro, Thimbukushu, and Seyei in formal schools and adult education programs. This perpetuates socio-cultural subordination of minorities and limits their access to democratic learning culture (Polelo, 2006). The exclusion of ethnic minorities also permeates other facets of their lives such as the exclusion of their arts and crafts being from national cultural platforms. For example, the National Radio Station mostly performs songs and poems from the majority culture, and those of ethnic minorities are practically ignored. It appears the subtle intent is for ethnic minorities to accept the arts of majority artists as national assets and to downplay those from their own culture (Maruatona, 2011). Consequently, the exclusion of cultural practices of ethnic minorities in national programs contributes to their low self-esteem. They end up being over-dependent on social services and handouts, and fail to appreciate the value of schooling and literacy as a means to lift themselves from destitution (Pansiri, 2011).

In Botswana, the state uses prescribed and centrally developed curriculum, which enables it to impose the history, culture, and economic practices of the dominant culture on minorities. The curricula at primary, junior secondary schools and the adult literacy program do not reflect the history and culture of ethnic minorities. They were not consulted during their development. The process of exclusion is hegemonic because it enables the state to persuade minority children and adult learners to accept the language and content of dominant groups as ‘national’ and or ‘official’ and to acquire knowledge, skills and ‘acceptable behavior’. This serves as a crucial part of the symbolism of national unity (Maruatona, 2006). At the epicenter of exclusion is the fact that school and adult learning curricula and textbooks of the national literacy program are silent about the culture of minority communities, thereby subtly disseminating values and norms of the majority (Maruatona and Newmann, 2011). For example, Pansiri (2011) observed that minorities in Botswana suffer exclusion because of a combination of factors such as the fact that minority children have low self-esteem and they are taught by poorly trained teachers who are not able to effectively facilitate in tri-lingual classrooms. These factors lead to high dropout rates and poor academic performance among ethnic minorities. The cultural practices of these minorities are inimical to the content being taught and the illustrations used in books. In classrooms, minority children are exposed to unfamiliar cultural practices such as the use of corporal punishment. San children end up dropping out of school and failing to access higher education, resulting in disproportionately high numbers of them facing social challenges such as unemployment and poverty.

However, contrary to the practice of using English and Setswana only and the use of unfamiliar contents, facilitators in literacy classes engage in counter-hegemonic activities. During teaching in the literacy program, ethnic minority learners and facilitators code switch from Setswana to minority languages to enhance understanding. This is partly because minority literacy facilitators were also poorly trained to teach in Setswana. They invariably had difficulties using it (Maruatona, 1998). Also, the state made no effort to develop inclusive language and curriculum development policies. For example, it chose not to develop the orthographies of ethnic minority languages. However, in spite of state reluctance to support them, cultural NGOs such as Kamanakao of the Wayei and the Ikalanga Language Society and the Khwedam Council of the San community have over the years developed and used these languages. Contrary to national rhetoric about enhanced access to learning, ethnic minorities still face challenges in accessing the basic literacy program.

Adult basic education program and social exclusion

Adult learners from ethnic minorities face challenges because of the heavily centralized adult basic education curricula, which does not reflect their histories. Earlier, in the 1960s and 1970s, considerable efforts were made by private individuals, missionaries, and Church-based NGOs to deliver literacy in various languages. However, the Government-sponsored Botswana National Literacy Program (BNLP), launched in 1981, aimed to eradicate illiteracy by providing literacy in Setswana to 250,000 people in 6 years, 1980–1985, reversed all these gains, thereby enabling the state to assert its hegemonic position. The use of Setswana ignored other languages. The eradication of illiteracy was not achieved, and by 1985, the focus of the program was then expanded to include providing literacy to out-of-school children in remote areas to cater to those who dropped out of formal school at the same time providing adults with practical skills training.

In 1992, His Excellency the President, appointed a second National Commission on Education (NCE), to review the impact of first NCE, which was instituted in 1977. The 1994 Revised National Commission on Education (RNCE) recommended the evaluation of the National Literacy Program and also proposed the establishment of a Three Level Adult Basic Education Program (ABEP), equivalent to Standard Seven in formal education (Republic of Botswana, 1994). The evaluation emphasized that minorities were not sufficiently consulted in developing learning materials, and their learning was inhibited by using Setswana (Hanemann, 2005). The 2003 National Literacy Survey results indicated that districts substantially populated by ethnic minorities such as Kweneng West (57.7%), Ghanzi District (59.9%), Ngamiland West (65.7%), and Kgalagadi South (64.9%) recorded low literacy rates and were below the 1993 national literacy rate of 68.9% (Republic of Botswana, 2003). These low rates suggest that minorities are excluded and the Government needs to make an effort to enhance their accesses to adult basic education for them in their languages where feasible. This reinforces the argument that minorities experience social exclusion and cultural hegemony, and this undermines their potential to use education to advance their livelihoods.

The 1994 RNCE required the state to develop an ABEP based on three levels. Level One was to be equivalent to Standards One–Two, Level Two equivalent to Standards Three–Four, and Level Three was equivalent to Standards Five–Seven in primary school. Theoretically, the curriculum was designed to enable individuals to move flexibly between adult literacy and the school system. In 2006, the Government engaged UNESCO, local consultants, and the staff of the Department of Out of School Education and Training (DOSET) to develop the ABEP curriculum. The DOSET staff were involved deliberately to provide the context and to train them to undertake future review of materials. However, the process of developing materials continued the hegemonic control of the process since most of DOSET staff members were based in the Headquarters and did not share much in common with people from remote areas. The writers did very little to effectively address the results of the 2004 literacy evaluation undertaken by UNESCO consultants, which expressed the concern that the curriculum did not reflect realities of the minorities (Hanemann, 2005).

Unfortunately, the new curriculum development team did very little to actually mobilize and practically involve learners and community leaders from ethnic minorities. They heavily relied on inputs from their representatives who were in the Curriculum Development Reference Committee. In spite of logistic constraints, the UNESCO-led team tried to borrow from international best practices in developing a curriculum that would be as inclusive as possible. The experts and local staff made efforts to make the ABEP blue print to deliver a flexible out-of-school program to accommodate social heterogeneity. They made efforts to address challenges based on gender, geographical area, and specific learning needs of future learners (DOSET, 2009). The Curriculum Development Team identified key livelihood areas and the teaching of core subjects such as English; Economy and Work; Setswana; Mathematics; Health, Science and Technology; and Social Issues. The resultant curriculum therefore had some potential to address the socio-cultural exclusion of ethnic minorities. However, since ethnic minorities were not involved, they continue to face social and cultural barriers, which deny them the opportunity to use education to enhance their economic status (UNESCO, 2008). The exclusion of minorities in Botswana could also be attributed to systemic deficiencies such as lack of a national qualifications framework and lack of efforts to facilitate viable partnerships with NGOs.

Lack of a national qualifications framework

Minority education faces several challenges such as lack of a national qualifications and credit framework (NQCF) and lack of state commitment to work with NGO stakeholders in delivering learning. An NQCF is a prerequisite structure for an LLL program that enables all types of learners to progress at different paces. An NQCF would enable young and adult learners to enter and leave the education system at different points without losing their credits. The development of the NQCF in Botswana has been slow, and in the process it has denied adult from ethnic minorities and out-of-school youth opportunities to learn flexibly. There is no progress path to Junior Certificate (JC) after completing ABEP. The absence of progression pathways linking nonformal route to JC leads to a situation where learners who complete the literacy program are unable to progress to JC through the nonformal route. The absence of an NQCF therefore denies learners outside the formal education access to the opportunity to complete 10 years of basic education. A comprehensive NQCF would permit learners from minority communities to complete their schooling through the nonformal route.

Failure to involve NGOs in education of ethnic minorities

In Botswana, the state monopolizes delivery of literacy education and fails to cooperate with other providers such as NGOs. DOSET has failed to provide mechanisms to coordinate its activities with NGOs engaged in the education and training of out-of-school children in remote and urban areas. Recommendation 80 of the 1994 Revised National Policy on Education (RNPE) required that the Government should support NGOs that run pilot out-of-school education centers (Republic of Botswana, 1994). The policy was intended to coordinate and improve literacy delivery. However, this did not happen. In spite of state reluctance, some NGOs such as Kamanakao of the Wayei and the Ikalanga Language Society and the Khwedam Council of the San community engaged in counter-hegemonic activities by addressing the educational and vocational needs of out-of-school children and youth in remote areas. However, there is no evidence that the state made any efforts to collaborate and support such NGOs. The lack of state support resulted in each of them operating independently, ignoring the policy on state–NGO cooperation, thereby compromising the quality of learning experience for ethnic minorities.

The Government needs to cooperate with NGOs delivering education and training for out-of-school youth and adults in remote areas. Consequently, lack of access to quality education forces remote area dwellers to depend on state welfare services. This becomes a form of exclusion for ethnic minorities and denies them opportunities to experience growth and personal development. In this context, delivery of social services assumes a reproductive character with only the educated enjoying better chances of securing gainful employment and further education. The state reluctance to work with NGOs to empower remote area dwellers could be because the elite feel they might lose their power and authority over these communities. The Government therefore failed to empower minorities to question social inequality and strive for social transformation (Schreiber-Barsh, 2009; Youngman, 2002). Youngman (2002) observed that the purpose of literacy education was to reproduce existent patterns of class, gender, and ethnic inequalities and to fortify the position of the dominant groups and reinforce the unequal socio-economic order. In view of the above challenges, Botswana needs to consider the following: deliver quality inclusive LLL programs, endorse the principle of multiculturalism, create clear learning pathways for schools and the basic literacy program, and collaborate with NGOs in delivering education for ethnic minorities.

Deliver quality inclusive LLL programs

Presently, the education system in Botswana is problematic because it is guided by the human capital approach, which disassociates LLL from personal and social empowerment and focuses almost exclusively on how education should contribute to personal improvement, mobility, better health, and cognitive development, which leads to what Freire (1990) refers to as ‘banking type of education’. The delivery of banking education fails to appreciate that the poor are side-lined by the state’s misdirected welfare services and not that they have internalized dependency (Harris, 2004). Education in Botswana accommodates social and economic inequality by condoning rather than challenging disparities. Thus, it serves the dominant social structures and does not enable excluded communities to take an active part in the affairs of the wider society, so that they depend on state safety nets and the poor are resigned to their marginal position (Byrne, 2008). The argument is that the social–cultural and economic exclusion of ethnic minorities in Botswana stems partly from minorities’ failure to view education as a means of supporting personal, social, economic, and political empowerment for all but as an instrument of selecting a few and disregarding the needs of others (Mayo, 2009). The net effect of this approach is that most ethnic minorities in remote areas are likely not to access the requisite qualifications for them to have access to decently paying work (Maruatona, 2011).

The state in Botswana fails to implement its declared commitment to the principle of LLL as articulated in its RNPE and takes advantage of weak opposition parties and civil society organizations to reinforce its hegemonic control over all sections of society including ethnic minorities. It also exploits the fact that minorities are not sufficiently mobilized to exert any pressure on it by asserting their rights to enjoy their civil liberties. The delivery of state sanctioned LLL experience enables it to perpetuate its hegemony because it sponsors what the ruling elite view as common but not necessarily innovative ideas that could enhance the welfare of minorities. Mojab and Carpenter (2011) note that continued systematic exclusion of minorities normalizes capitalist relations of production and makes the excluded to endorse their socio-cultural exclusion. It dispossesses learners from minority communities and undermines their lived experience as a people. This facilitates their alienation in order to confuse them into assuming that they are part of the broad state sponsored hegemonic culture.

It is against this backdrop that Botswana is urged to deliver LLL programs, which are intended to assist minorities break free of the cycle of poverty, unemployment, and social exclusion. It needs to develop an education system that embodies the principle of transformation to help learners engage in activities that reflect community empowerment and self-consciousness and create opportunities for self-employment (Freire, 1990). Maurice (1992) observed that inclusive LLL education needs to be provided for all people to access minimum services such as health, housing income, employment, and consumption of goods and services. Grayson (2005) argues that all learners need skills that are locally relevant and nationally and globally appealing to enable them to address their impending sense of insecurity and uncertainty. First, they must play an active role in the design and implementation of their learning. Second, planning requires planners to include experiences of children and adults from ethnic minorities. Third, the design and implementation of learning needs to carefully combine theoretical and practical dimensions of the culture, history, and environment of ethnic minorities. The delivery of inclusive LLL requires educators to engage learners in dialogues to challenge their lived experiences and be instrumental in managing change driven by personal and social empowerment (Freire, 1990; Keegh, 2003). The proposed approach becomes problematic as it challenges state-driven adherence to human capital principles of growth with efficiency and profiteering. LLL therefore needs to deliver pro-poor redistributive education that identifies and challenges the causes of social exclusion (Freire, 1973; Maruatona, 2011; Sanclair, McKendrick and Scott, 2010).

Transformative LLL programs keep a delicate balance between various aspects of social inclusion and provide a systemic critique of the idiosyncrasies of traditional education policy and expose the extent to which learning facilitates rather than averts social exclusion (Browning, 2000). Ethnic minorities in Botswana need to be provided with LLL experiences that would enable them to find and secure decent jobs to transform themselves into self-sufficient citizens. Progressive educators need to produce socially appropriate knowledge and cultural practices that would rescue learners from the shackles of banking education (Freire, 1990). LLL among ethnic minorities in Botswana needs to better articulate the national ideals and local realities and learners need to engage in dialogue, which would enable them to link local, regional and national cultural imperatives to secure cultural autonomy and challenge state hegemony (Freire, 1990; Gramsci, 1971). This can be done through enabling ethnic minorities to utilize acquired knowledge to secure employment and be self-employed within their communities. Browning (2000) contends that having job skills and securing a job facilitates inclusion as it gives the individual a sense of self-worth through economic and social participation, while unemployment causes lack of capacity and leads to social exclusion.

Consequently, Preece (2001) proposes that inclusive lifelong education has to provide educational experiences that yield social purposes and bridge the gap between learning rich and learning poor environments to provide all citizens with literacy and functional skills. Planners in Botswana need to take into account the circumstances of remote and excluded communities. Inclusive lifelong education requires the state to deliberately invest in people’s indigenous knowledge systems to deliver learning experiences that are driven by key attributes such as attaining social justice and citizenry engagement and while at the same time preserving their cultural identities (Robertson, 2004). Yzauguirre (1998) notes that inclusive education provides learning experiences that transform learners into tolerant and productive citizens who can endorse differences based on the multiplicity of cultures. InBotswana, this can be attained through engaging in participatory planning that accommodates cultures of all communities.

Endorsement of the principle of multiculturalism

The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy defines multiculturalism as a body of thought in political philosophy about the proper way to respond to cultural and religious diversity (Song, 2010). It is meant to address knotty issues such as ‘identity politics’ and ‘the politics of recognition’, which illustrate humanity’s commitment to address disrespected identities and challenge dominant patterns of reality, thereby to persuade the privileged to reassess their comfort zones (Gutmann, 2003). This is often seen as a Western concept, but the truth is that it is even more applicable in Africa where nations are still seized with the basic question of identity and are striving to reconcile ethnic-based political differences. Botswana, like other culturally diverse nations, needs to recognize the worth of hitherto marginalized cultures. Multiculturalism is particularly appealing for the Botswana context because it views access to quality education as key to realizing democracy, equity, and sustainability, which could help the country to achieve one of its Vision 2016 pillars of being ‘an educated and informed nation’ (Presidential Task Group, 1997). Mojab and Carpenter (2011) argue that genuine democracy does not only transform social lives but also helps to produce good citizens who are guardians of their liberal rights, who also detest inequality, dispossession, and alienation. It could be argued that Botswana falls short of this ideal because its literacy program and schools impose two languages in a multilingual and multiethnic context and strive to persuade the excluded to endorse content that exclusively reflects the history and culture of the majority. This is not peculiar to Botswana; it is part of an elaborate system of enforcing state hegemony that needs to be challenged. Freire (1973) viewed education and learning as essential means to enable people to overcome their naïve perception of reality. He strived to engage learners in constructive dialogue to replace this view with one that is critical and transformative. He argues that teachers have to visit their neighborhood to appreciate the diversity of cultural experiences of their learners. They need to engage learners in constructive dialogue about their realities and histories for that to form part of a responsive curriculum.

Currently, the Botswana Government ignores diversity based on culture, language, geography, and ethnicity. The state holds an erroneous view that by providing inclusive LLL programs it would compromise its hegemonic power over minorities. Therefore, it is visibly reluctant to commit resources to develop orthographies of excluded communities to preserve their indigenous environmental conservation knowledge and other life skills through including them in the education system. Also, the nation needs to invest in such remote communities to ensure that minorities can use their cultural and materials artifacts to secure employment or create jobs for themselves. As Yzauguirre (1998) demonstrates, educational practice should learn to appreciate diversity in society. He maintains that learning from each cultural group could lead to a stronger nation compared to looking at other cultures as challenging state hegemony.

Botswana could address issues of multiculturalism through engaging minorities by decentralizing educational delivery. In Botswana, it is only carried out piecemeal. For example, the Government decentralized the operations of the DOSET, which is tasked with delivering adult literacy to the regions. However, the challenge is that regions are not empowered to exercise power and authority over either the choice of language of literacy instruction or in the development of learning materials and assessment modes. The decisions are a monopoly of the central Government, which enables the elite to maintain a tight hegemonic control on what is taught and its evaluation. Notwithstanding this level of state control, some NGOs work among minorities to deliver literacy classes in their languages. For example, in Da’Kar, NGOs teach Basarwa (indigenous people) using Naro, one of their languages. In the North West, literacy was organized in Thimbukushu, the mother tongue of the Hambukushu people (Chebanne et al., 2000). The trust for Okavango Development Initiative documented the lexicon of the Khwedam, a language of the Khwe people who are part of the San. They are the indigenous people of Southern Africa (Maruatona, 2011).

The use of these languages preserves the cultural knowledge and rich history of these communities. Chebanne et al. (2000) argue that the choice of mother tongue enables learners to retain their cultural identity. The state needs to devolve decision-making authority to regional and local levels if this rationalization is to benefit remote communities. Notwithstanding these benefits, multiculturalism has some challenges; it seems to restrict individuals to their cultural domains and might deny ethnic minorities a chance to learn from ethnic majority cultures and vice versa. Also, it might lead disadvantaged people to tolerate and accept state symbolic changes and not demand comprehensive remedy against economic inequality and exploitation they have endured over time (Fraser and Honneth, 2003). In spite of these challenges, multiculturalism remains an aspect of a viable strategy to redress the situation of the minorities.

Create learning pathways for all learners

Critical to the delivery of inclusive LLL is the need for systemic structures and processes that would ease learning and progression pathways within and across programs. While the Botswana National Revised Policy on Education endorses the principle of LLL, it has fallen short of putting in place efficient structures for learners to acquire comparable qualifications to flexibly move between systems. The need for the development of a comprehensive credit and qualifications framework (NQCF) has been felt since the late 1990s, but it is only now under development as part of the mandate of the Botswana Qualification Authority (BQA) established in 2013. The existence of a national credit and qualifications framework will enable all sections of society to register their indigenous and acquired knowledge systems and earn credits for them. The BQA is now developing guidelines for the enforcement validation of prior learning and experiential learning within the overall framework of a national credit system. It is envisaged that when it is in full operation, the framework will facilitate learner mobility within different sub-sectors of education and training. This will be significant in the attainment of the principle of LLL. It will afford learners from minority communities an opportunity to register their arts and crafts skills and unit standards or full-fledged qualifications and be assessed in their own right. Under BQA, assessors consult learners as expert in their arts and crafts extensively in the process of developing these qualifications. The credit and qualifications framework will provides opportunities for all learners including those from minority communities to appreciate the value of progression pathways and being able to bank and transfer credits across systems with clearly spelled out equivalencies. This will enable learners from minority communities to use the adult basic education system to complete a Standard Seven equivalent program through the nonformal route as prescribed in the recommendations of the 1994 RNPE. It will afford them the chance to proceed further to Junior Certificate (JC) level once such a structure is developed. Out-of-School Education provides minority learners with an alternative route to acquire literacy without having to be subjected to degrading experiences such as corporal punishment at state operated primary schools where their culture and history are ignored. Evidence suggests that minority learners drop out of school in large numbers compared to other communities. This alternative route would enable minorities to acquire useful skills to improve their livelihoods and be less dependent on state subsidies for survival.

Collaborate with NGOs in delivering education for minorities

Over the years, NGOs and civil society organizations have made a commendable effort to redress educational and social needs of ethnic minorities in Botswana. For example, a Britain-based human rights International NGO, Survival International, assisted the San with a protracted and very costly legal battle against the state to be allowed to stay in their ancestral lands in the CKGR. The Government attempted to forcefully relocate them from their ancestral lands to make it available for other uses. Fortunately, the San won the case, and the state was ordered by the court ruling to provide them with essential services such as clean drinking water and hunting licenses although it has since rescinded (Good, 2008). Civil society refers to voluntary associations and organizations to which individuals and groups are affiliated. These are based on free pursuit of personal and cultural interests located between the family, economy, and the state and help people to find value in challenging oppressive social structures (Elsey, 1993). Some local NGOs have set up programs to assist remote communities to receive education and training to help them preserve their cultural identity and acquire essential life skills to fight poverty (Le Roux, 2000). The RNPE recommended collaboration with NGOs, but the Government shows no political will to engage nonstate actors (Republic of Botswana, 1994). This reaffirms the argument that Botswana is a typical developmental state, which is characterized by a weak civil society and powerful and insulated bureaucracy (Taylor, 2012). The Government has since been very cagy or reluctant to work with NGOs in providing services to ethnic minorities, especially those living in remote areas. However, the Government needs to work with such NGOs to provide an oversight role by providing them with guidelines to maintain quality for such NGO operated educational programs. The state has to recognize the strengths of some of these organizations, especially those working with difficult to reach communities. Most NGOs have a long history of using participatory methods to develop culturally sensitive strategies for effective delivery of services to ethnic minorities. They pay attention to and reflect the complexity of civic life through engaging in dialogue with communities about their knowledge systems and skills needed for them to participate fully in their learning (Keegh, 2003). Keegh argues that NGOs as part of civil society serve as the primary site of imparting citizenship knowledge, skill, and attitude. NGOs operate from the premise that the Government is not fully representative of the people.

The Government needs to work with NGOs because they have vast skills and experiences in mapping and negotiating needs of remote communities; they allow locals to retain their independence and support them in implementing relevant skills to overcome dependency to identify and resolve social and cultural challenges (Freire, 1990; Gladdish, 2010). As a result, the state needs to establish partnerships with NGOs to effectively organize LLL experiences for remote communities. The collaboration would enable learners from minority communities to transform themselves into productive citizens who appreciate their cultural heritage and value the role of LLL in transforming their lives.

Conclusion

This article has explored the use of transformative LLL to facilitate social inclusion of ethnic minorities in Botswana. It outlines the sources of exclusion for minorities and suggests ways to mitigate its negative impact. The article suggests ways to deliver pro-poor and inclusive learning for them. It provides an overview of key concepts of LLL, social inclusion, exclusion, and ethnic minorities. The article describes the socio-political and economic context of Botswana and notes that in spite of its relative economic success, Botswana adopted a human capital theory that inherently excludes the poor, resulting in ethnic minorities facing cultural, economic, and social exclusion, which manifests itself in high rates of poverty and unemployment. It argues that in nonformal ABEPs, ethnic minorities are compelled to learn in Setswana and English languages, but are not involved in developing the curricula. The article decries the fact that ethnic minorities face numerous structural challenges such as lack of a NQCF and the failure of the state to collaborate with NGOs to improve delivery of educational services to minorities. In view of the above challenges, it suggests that Botswana needs to deliver quality inclusive LLL, endorse multiculturalism, create clear qualifications pathways between schools and basic literacy, and strive to collaborate with NGOs in delivering transformative LLL programs that respond to the needs of ethnic minorities.

Footnotes

Funding

This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

References

Apple

(2008) Can schooling contribute to a more just society? Journal of Education, Citizenship and Social Justice 3(3): 239–261.

Apple

(2009) Some ideas on interpreting the right: on doing critical education work in conservative times. Journal of Education, Citizenship and Social Justice 4(2): 87–101.

Biesta

(2005) The learning democracy? Adult learning and the condition of democratic citizenship. British Journal of Sociology of Education 26(5): 687–703.

Bourdieu

(1993) The Field of Cultural Production: Essays on Art and Literature. New York: Columbia University Press.

Boushey

Fremstad

Gragg

. (2007) Understanding low-wage work in the United States. Available at: http://www.inclusionist.org/files/lowwagework.pdf (accessed 17 April 2012).

Browning

(2000) Social exclusion: limitations of the debate. Journal of Critical Social Policy 20(3): 307–330.

Buchanan

(2007) Including the socially excluded: the impact of government policy on vulnerable families and children in need. British Journal of Social Work 37: 178–207.

Byrne

(ed.) (2008) Social Exclusion: Critical Concepts in Sociology, vol. 1: The History and Use of Concepts. London: Routledge.

Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) (2012) World fact book: Botswana. Available at: http://www.immigration-usa.com/world_fact_book_2012/botswana/index.html (accessed 7 November 2014).

10.

Chau

(2001) Social exclusion of Chinese people in Britain. Critical Social Policy 21(1): 103–125.

11.

Chebanne

Nyati-Ramahobo

Youngman

(2000) Adult literacy and cultural diversity in Botswana. In: Paper presented to the fifth annual national literacy forum (BANALF), University of Botswana, Gaborone, Botswana, 5–6 June.

12.

Cleaver

(2005) The inequality social capital and the reproduction of chronic poverty. Journal of World Development 33(6): 893–906.

13.

Crowther

Galloway

Martin

(eds) (2005) Popular Education, Engaging the Academy: International Perspectives. Leicester: NIACE.

14.

Department of Out of School Education and Training (DOSET) (2009) Annual Report. Gaborone, Botswana: DOSET.

15.

Diop

(1999) Africa: mankind’s past and future. In: Makgabo

(ed.) The African Renaissance: The New Struggle. Pretoria, South Africa: Mafube Publishers, 3–9.

16.

Elsey

(1993) Voluntarism and adult education as civil society and the third way for personal empowerment and social change. International Journal of Lifelong Education 12(1): 3–16.

17.

Field

(2003) Civic engagement and lifelong learning: Survey findings on social capital and attitudes towards learning. Journal of Studies in the Education of Adults 35(2): 142–156.

18.

Fraser

Honneth

(2003) Redistribution or Recognition? A Political-philosophical Exchange. London: Verso.

19.

Freire

(1973) Education as the Practice for Freedom. London: Continuum.

20.

Freire

(1990) Pedagogy of the Oppressed. New York: Continuum Publishing.

21.

Gladdish

(ed.) (2010) Learning, Participation and Choices: A Guide for Facilitating Older Learners. London: NIACE.

22.

Good

(2008) Diamonds Dispossession and Democracy in Botswana. Oxford: James Currey.

23.

Gouthro

(2007) Active and inclusive citizenship for women: democratic considerations for fostering lifelong learning. International Journal of Lifelong Education 26(2): 143–154.

24.

Gramsci

(1971) Selections from the Prison Notes. London: Lawrence and Wishart Ltd.

25.

Grayson

(2005) Social movement and free spaces in civil society: the case of the British tennant Movement and Nothern College. In: Crowther

Galloway

Martin

(eds) Popular education: Engaging the academy: International perspectives (Chapter 16). Leicester: NIACE, pp.181–191.

26.

Gutmann

(2003) Identity in Democracy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

27.

Hanemann

(2005) Literacy in Botswana. (Background Paper for the Education for All Global Monitoring Report 2006: Literacy for life ED/EFA/MRT/PI/41), March, pp.1–26. Available at: http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0014/001460/146005e.pdf

28.

Harris

(2004) Social inclusion, globalization and the commonwealth. In: Finer

Smyth

(eds) Social Policy and the Commonwealth: Prospects for Social Inclusion. London: Palgrave, 29–50.

29.

International Monetary Fund (IMF) (2012) Staff report for the 2012 article IV consultation. Available at: http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/scr/2012/cr12234.pdf (accessed 12 January 2013).

30.

Kane

(2005) Ideology Matters. In: Crowther

Galloway

Martin

(eds) Popular education: Engaging the academy: International perspectives (chapter 3). Leicester: NIACE, pp.32–42.

31.

Keegh

(2003) Learning for citizenship in Ireland. The role of adult education. In: Medel-Aňonuevo

Mitchell

(eds) Citizenship, Democracy and Lifelong learning. Paris: UNESCO, 1–42.

32.

Kirby

Knapper

Lamon

. (2010) Developing a scale to measure lifelong learning. International Journal of Lifelong Education 29(3): 291–302.

33.

Labonte

(2004) Social inclusion/exclusion: dancing the dialectic. Health Promotion International 19(1): 115–121.

34.

Le Roux

(2000) Torn apart: San children as change agents in a process of acculturation: A report on the education situation of san children in Southern Africa. Shakawe, Botswana: Kuru Development Trust/WIMSA.

35.

Maruatona

(1998) Gender perceptions of participation and use of the Botswana National Literacy Programme (BNLP) among the minorities: case of the Basubiya in Chobe District. Journal of Botswana Notes and Records 30: 9–26.

36.

Maruatona

(2002) A critique of centralized literacy programs: the case of Botswana. Journal of Adolescent & Adult literacy 45(8): 736–745.

37.

Maruatona

(2006) Adult education, deliberative democracy and social re-engagement in Africa. Journal of Developing Societies 22(1): 11–28.

38.

Maruatona

(2011) Lifelong learning and the pursuit of a vision for sustainable development in Botswana. Journal of Studies in Continuing Education 33(2): 121–138.

39.

Maruatona

Millican

(2010) Literacy visions, policies and strategies in Africa. In: What Makes Effective Learning in African Literacy Programs? Libreville, Gabon: The Association of the Development of Education in Africa (ADEA), 97–133. Available at: http://adeanet.org/triennale-followup/sites/default/files/papier_03_en.pdf

40.

Maruatona

Newmann

(2011) Draft report on the diagnosis of basic education in Botswana. Gaborone, Botswana. Unpublished manuscript.

41.

Marwala

(2006) Skills necessary for the advancement of South Africa. Umrabulo 26: 60–61.

42.

Maurice

(1992) Rethinking Citizenship. Cambridge: Polity.

43.

Mayo

(2009) The ‘competence’ discourse in education and the struggle for social agency and critical citizenship. International Journal of Educational Policies 3(2): 5–16.

44.

Medel-Aňonuevo

(ed.) (2003) Integrating Lifelong Discourses in Europe. Paris: UNESCO Institute of Education, UNESCO.

45.

Mojab

Carpenter

(2011) Educating from Marx: Race, Gender, and Learning. London: Palgrave Macmillan.

46.

Morris

(2001) Social exclusion and young disabled people with high level of support needs. Journal of Critical Social Support Policy 121(2): 161–184.

47.

Pansiri

(2011) Silent exclusion: the unheard voices in remote areas of Botswana. International Journal of Educational Sciences 3(2): 109–118.

48.

Polelo

(2006) School drop-out among the remote area dwellers of Botswana: a socio-cultural analysis. Pula: Botswana Journal of African Studies 19: 85–102.

49.

Preece

(2001) Implications for including the socially excluded in the learning age. In: Jarvis

(ed.) The Age of Learning: Education and the Knowledge Society. London: Kogan Page, 171–184.

50.

Preece

(2009) Lifelong learning and development: a perspective from the ‘South’. Compare: A Journal of Comparative and International Education 39(5): 585–599.

51.

Preece

(2011) Research in adult education and lifelong learning in the era of CONFINTEA VI. International Journal of Lifelong Education 30(1): 99–117.

52.

Presidential Task Group (1997) Vision 2016: Towards Prosperity for All. Gaborone, Botswana: Department of Publishing Services.

53.

Republic of Botswana (1994) Revised National Policy on Education. Gaborone, Botswana: Department of Publishing Services.

54.

Republic of Botswana (January, 2003) The report of the second national literacy survey. B005F1NOYI Gaborone, Botswana: Department of Publishing Services.

55.

Republic of Botswana and United Nations Development Program (UNDP) (2011) Botswana: Millennium Development Goals Status Report, 2010. Gaborone, Botswana: PPCB.

56.

Robertson

(2004) The role of money and finance: changing a central part of the problem into a central part of the solution. Foresight 6(1): 31–37.

57.

Sanclair

McKendrick

Scott

(2010) Finding young people? Education and aspiration in a deprived community. Journal of Education, Citizenship and Social Justice 5(1): 5–20.

58.

Saraceno

(1997) The importance of the concept of social exclusion. In: Beck

Maesen

Walker

(eds) The Social Quality of Europe. London: Kluwer Law International, pp.157–163.

59.

Schreiber-Barsh

(2009) Raising participation—or furthering exclusion? Regional lifelong learning strategies under scrutiny. International Journal of Lifelong Education 28(1): 41–55.

60.

Sen

(2000) Social exclusion: concept, application, and scrutiny. Available at: http://housingforall.org/Social_exclusion.pdf (accessed 13 March 2012).

61.

Song

(2010) ‘Multiculturalism’. In: Zalta

(ed.) The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2010 Edition). Available at: http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2010/entries/multiculturalism/ (accessed 28 July 2012).

62.

Statistics Botswana (2011) Preliminary results of the Botswana Core welfare indicators (poverty) survey 2009/2010. No. 2011/15, November. Gaborone, Botswana: Statistics Office.

63.

(2009) Idea creation: the need to develop creativity in lifelong learning practices. International Journal of Lifelong Education 28(6): 705–718.

64.

Taylor

(2012) Botswana as a ‘development oriented gate-keeping state’: a response. African Affairs 111(444): 466–476.

65.

Torres

(2003) Lifelong Learning in the South: Critical Issues and Opportunities for Adult Education. Stockholm: Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency.

66.

United Nations Organization for Education, Science and Culture (UNESCO) (2006) Global Monitoring Report. Paris: UNESCO.

67.

United Nations Organization for Education, Science and Culture (UNESCO) (2008) Global Monitoring Report. Paris: UNESCO.

68.

United Nations Organization for Education, Science and Culture (UNESCO) (2009) Global Monitoring Report. Paris: UNESCO.

69.

Walters

(2001) Adult education in lifelong learning in Southern Africa. In: Korsgaard

Walters

Andersen

(eds) Learning for Democratic Citizenship. Copenhagen: Association for World Education and the Danish University of Education, 182–202.

70.

Williams

(2011) Raising expectations or constructing victims? Problems with promoting social inclusion through lifelong learning. International Journal of Lifelong Education 30(4): 451–467.

71.

World Bank (2011) Botswana—rural population growth. Available at: http://www.indexmundi.com/facts/botswana/rural-population-growth (accessed 14 September 2011).

72.

Youngman

(2002) An overview of adult basic and literacy education in Botswana. In: Paper presented at the Centre for Adult Education, University of Natal Pietermaritzburg, Durban, South Africa, 3–6 December.

73.

Yzauguirre

(1998) The new American identity. In: Esselbein

Goldsworth

Beckard

. (eds) The Coming of the Future. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, 223–227.