Lecture 2. The main directions of development of the global education system.

Over the past two years, UNESCO and its partners (mainly UNICEF) have worked with 180 countries to assess their progress towards basic education for all (EFA) since 1990. Our statistics (UNESCO, 2000) show that most developing countries are making steady progress towards the goals of universal primary educational and reducing adult illiteracy, and that despite their limited resources, some developing countries (eg. Bangladesh) have made surprisingly good progress. The quest to provide education for all has made little headway in countries ravaged by armed conflict, crippling debt and rapid population growth. In particular, the data show a worrying increase in the number of out-of-school children in the poorest countries, especially in SubSaharan Africa. Over the past decade, public expenditure for primary education in the LDCs remained static at about $20 per pupil, while among the developed countries it rose to well over $5000. In 1980, expenditure at the pre-tertiary level in the developed countries was 37 times higher than that of the LDCs: in 1997, it was 137 times greater. Education may be the key to poverty alleviation, but the education offered to the poor and in poor countries is one of the first victims when resources are being cut. Unless the global forces impacting on these countries and their internal situation changes dramatically, our estimates indicate they will fall further behind during the next decade. While most countries have been able to keep pace quantitatively with the growth in numbers, few countries have been able to find the resources to provide a quality education for all. If anything, the quality of the education offered to the masses has suffered. For example, the picture emerging 156 Global trends in education from the analysis of the situation in Central and Eastern Europe reveals that the transition to a market economy has been extremely difficult for most countries in the region, the economic downturn precipitating cuts in educational expenditure and with that a deterioration in the conditions for teaching and learning, to growing inequality in education and high drop-out rates, especially in rural areas. The evidence also suggests that even in the rich countries, increases in income inequality are associated with increases in education and social inequality. For example, not only does the UK have one of the largest income gaps among OECD countries, it also has the highest proportion (19.4%) of young people aged 16-19 years who are neither attending school nor employed, higher than Italy, Spain or Greece and roughly five times that of Denmark and Germany. The concerns about the quality of education expressed by the Heads of Government at the G-8 summit in Koln are predominantly related to this ‘underclass’ of disadvantaged young people most of whom leave school early, are functionally illiterate, and whose anti-social behaviour at school and in the community increasingly constitutes a threat to security and quality of life of others. The cumulative social and educational effects of disadvantage have been well documented. The research shows that the impact of disadvantage on a particular child’s education and subsequent behaviour depends on the cumulative effects of several risk factors including poverty, family breakdown, sustained patterns of impaired child-parent relationships, instability and disruption in key developmental contexts such as the family and school. The research suggests that irrespective of cultural context, it is difficult for families and schools to maintain the sustained care and interaction needed by a child to develop in conditions of poverty, conflict and constant change. There have been many attempts to ameliorate the effect of disadvantage on educational opportunities. Mortimore and Whitty (1997) outline four: one based on the concept of meritocracy, one on the use of compensatory mechanisms, one on the creation of intervention projects, and the last, change through school improvement. The first emphasises competition, but the evidence show that although it works for a few (as many of us here can attest) it does nothing to improve the situation of those left behind – be they individuals, communities or countries. Compensatory measures may target individuals or families (eg. school meals), disadvantaged schools or groups (eg. Aboriginal Schools) or, at the international level, countries or even regions (eg. UN Special Initiative for Africa). In general, these are somewhat more effective, but targeting is not always easy and the root causes may remain untouched. Intervention projects such as Headstart, Success for All and the Reading Recovery Programme do seem to help combat the individual consequences of disadvantage but none of these remedies seem to be effective in altering the overall patterns of inequality in education. The roots of school improvement lie in the research on school effectiveness. This approach places the responsibility for change in the hands of the school and its community and the evidence suggests that when committed and talented school heads and teachers work in partnership with parents and the community even in disadvantaged areas, schools can improve. Of course, it is not surprising that a strong negative correlation between most measures of social and cultural disadvantage and educational outcomes persist. Even a cursory glance at the league tables (cf. IEA, Education at a Glance) shows that schools and nations at the top are invariably those of the rich, and those at the bottom the most disadvantaged. Whatever changes are made at the school level or in the education systems of poor countries, their efforts will be constrained to the extent which inequalities within and between countries are structural and powerful mechanisms are maintained to reproduce existing hierarchies, and to the extent that ‘social capital’ continues to decline as relationships and supportive social networks collapse. The situation has been made worse by policies at national and international levels which deny the right of all to a Power 157 decent education and thereby undermine the principle that education is a public good and the responsibility of the whole society, especially of governments. If we are to overcome disadvantage at the individual, national or international level, we need education programs which respect the cultures and address the realities of the families and children to be served and give priority to the alleviation of poverty and building support structures for families and nations in difficulty. The stark facts on growing inequality and polarisation presented above drive home the reality that it is simply impossible to improve access to education or the quality of the education in poor countries without extra resources, and that within countries extra resources must be found to improve the quality and functioning of schools, families and communities, particularly those located in disadvantaged areas. But from where must these resources come? In the end, governments and international organisations (public and private) must assume their national and global responsibilities and reallocate resources to meet targets (eg 0.7 per cent for aid, 6 per cent plus of GNP for education etc) – even if that means taxing the rich, cutting arms expenditure or putting people before profits. If we do not assume a new path, life will be particularly difficult during the Twenty-first century for the already disadvantaged. At the World Conference on Education for All (Jomtien, 1990), we insisted on meeting the basic learning needs of all, the emphasis being on learning achievement, not merely attending school. But acquiring the knowledge and skills needed to participate in the life and work of communities in the Twenty-first century is possible only if the essential conditions for learning are present in the formal and non-formal education programs. In the schools serving the poor and marginalised, these conditions are absent. Children cannot be expected to learn or to stay in school if they are sick, hungry and exhausted, if the school is overcrowded and unsanitary, if there are few or no books and teachers are unpaid and unqualified. At best progress towards the alleviation of poverty will be slow if the present international economic and political order remains unchanged – if the poorest countries and groups are locked into a seemingly endless downward spiral of poverty, debt, conflict and misery and if inhuman traffic in weapons, drugs, arms, women and children continues unchecked. Education may be the key to the alleviation of poverty and to sustainable development, but not if the global economic order leads us to high quality private education for an elite and a poorly funded and inferior public education system for the masses. There will a global crisis in education if we allow our market forces to polarise the world of education, internationally and nationally. Globalisation and Higher Education Today, global wealth is concentrated less and less in factories and the land, and more and more in knowledge and skills. In the USA human capital is now estimated to be at least three times more important than physical capital. Participation in the rapidly changing knowledge society of the Twenty-first century demands new knowledge and skills and learning throughout life, and higher qualifications than ever before. As a result, the demand for higher education is growing constantly, higher education systems are under great strain to cope with dramatic increases in numbers without a commensurate increase in public funding. In many countries, expansion, both public and private, has been ‘unbridled, unplanned and often chaotic’. The results – deterioration in average quality, continuing inter-regional, inter-country and intra-country inequalities, and increased forprofit provision of higher education – could have serious consequences’ for developing countries and disadvantaged groups and the very concept of the ‘university.’ The World Conference on Higher Education (Paris, 1998) sought to ‘set the direction needed to prepare higher education for the tasks that await it in the Twenty-first century, and to help 158 Global trends in education mankind and the community of nations to strive out towards a better future, towards a world more just, more humane, more caring and more peaceful’ by establishing a few key principles and priorities for action. The Conference showed the need to strengthen the traditional research and specialised teaching functions of the university, while at the same time to insist on its intercultural and international mission of higher education in the Twenty-first century. Globalisation processes have led to an unprecedented demand for access to higher education while at the same time most governments are unwilling or unable to provide the necessary support to public institutions. Thus the dramatic growth in private and open higher education, the financial and identity crisis facing universities worldwide, and the intense and increasing competition for overseas students among the big league of internationalised universities and for adult learners from open and virtual corporate universities. In this context, I would hope that governments see beyond the immediate and understand that within the walls of the University there is a treasure within. Globalisation and Teacher Education The Delors report (UNESCO, 1996) sets out an agenda for the future which implies that significant changes are needed in pre-service teacher education programs if we are to select and prepare a new generation of teachers equipped with the knowledge, skills and values to help their culturally different and their socially disadvantaged students to learn, to resolve conflicts peacefully, to respect each other’s dignity and cultures, and to become socially responsible citizens. What emerges from the research is that teacher education which follows the ‘Do as I say, not do as I do model’ has to be replaced by one which sees learning to teach as a deeply personal activity in which includes activities designed to develop sensitivity to cultures, languages and lives of children coming from different social and cultural groups, and which provides constant and significant support, working with cohort groups, and a systematic long-term message which provides guidance and direction for personal development. The direction and culture of educational research must also change if we are to reform educational policies, established practice, curricula and teaching materials in ways which facilitate intercultural learning and ameliorate the problems created by disadvantage and discrimination in education and society. For example, there is a great deal that we do not know about the impact of international and government policies what is happening in our multicultural schools and universities; about the content and processes of education in traditional and contemporary cultural contexts; about the conditions under which intercultural learning and conflicts are resolved peacefully in different settings; about how best to select, prepare and support teachers and communities to cope with the realities and contradictions created by shifts in population, technology and policy; about the effectiveness of different approaches to combating violence, racism, substance abuse and suicide in our schools and universities. Another research agenda for the Twenty-first century relates to the impact of different types of student and faculty exchange programs, citizenship education, interactive multimedia packages and the web on intercultural sensitivity and the conditions under which various types of learning experiences transfer into acceptance of difference and tolerance in one’s own community, school or university.