Education policy forms the basic structure of practice and governance and profoundly affects work and outcomes in education (Arafeh, 2014, p. 1), both through formal structures and laws as well as spoken and unspoken social and cultural norms (Arafeh, 2014, p. 4). All policy, education policy not excluded, involves making compromises to seek balances between freedoms, resources, interests, values, and efficiencies, and often involves redefining values in order to justify and account for the outcome of the decisions made (Rizvi & Lingard, 2010, pp. 71–72). Education is a right of citizenship and shaped by national policy,  while also largely determining how citizens view the meaning of citizenship in their local context as it relates to their relationship with governing bodies and structures (Bell & Stevenson, 2006, pp. 61–62). 

In the past, social welfare policy in the west supported notions of universalism, the belief that individuals’ rights to social welfare should be independent of their ability to contribute to the economic well-being of the nation-state, and that all citizens should have access to every liberty regardless of their station, thus empowering the state to intervene in market processes and redistribute resources in such a way as to balance inequalities. Rights of social citizenship were considered universal, much like civil and political citizenship rights (Bell & Stevenson, 2006, p. 60).In such a policy landscape, support for public education should flourish as a basic right of all individuals in support of democracy, equality, personal fulfillment, and the intrinsic value of every individual and their education   (Rizvi & Lingard, 2010, pp. 72, 78). 

More recently, a global shift towards neoliberal education policies focusing on human capital in a globalized economy, privatization, efficiency, and accountability has occurred  (Rizvi & Lingard, 2010, p. 72). The importance of national human capital development to economic growth viewed  from the neoliberal perspective firmly places education policy in the realm of national economic policy, resulting in the dominance of social efficiency as a policy value and education policy that supports economic productivity of nations and corporations (Bell & Stevenson, 2006, p. 58; Rizvi & Lingard, 2010, p. 78). Supporters of neoliberal policy cite the failure of the universal approach to provide balanced service provision to marginalized groups and its inability to address culture in diverse nations and argue that the market offers the only fair way to appraise and allocate resources (Bell & Stevenson, 2006, p. 61).

The shift towards neoliberal education policy poses risks. Education policy is social policy insofar as it promotes welfare, ideology, and social cohesion (Bell & Stevenson, 2006, p. 58). The neoliberal practice of viewing individuals as being only as valuable as their contribution to the free market necessarily results in rebalancing and renegotiating values like equity and democracy, sidelining some values and promoting others (Rizvi & Lingard, 2010, p. 76). Policies promoting test-based accountability resulting from this neoliberal perspective of education may oversimplify complex local contextual issues and reduce social justice (Lingard, Martino, & Rezai-Rashti, 2013, p. 539). The focus on education policy to support global economic competitiveness minimizes the value of discourse centered on altruism and assumes that public institutions and governments are threats to individual freedom (Rizvi & Lingard, 2010, p. 86). Increasing privatization of education services based on assumptions of greater efficiency runs the risk of corroding state commitment to public education resulting in it becoming a low-quality residual service for the poor and those without the political power to ask for more (Bell & Stevenson, 2006, p. 62; Rizvi & Lingard, 2010, p. 87). Decentralization for accountability can decrease  national cohesion and, as marginalized students and teachers in low-income schools struggle against the odds to raise scores in subjects on standardized tests, they are more likely to ignore educating students in skills of participatory democracy, further limiting their ability to lobby for more social welfare support  (Bell & Stevenson, 2006, p. 68) At the international level, as governments and international aid providers apply results-based criteria to determine whether developing nations receive education funding there is a risk that developing education systems will lose funding due to low initial capacity or factors out of their control (Holland & Lee, 2017, pp. 26–27). 

The proliferation of neoliberal policy in education and tendency to subsume values to social efficiency as a meta-value risks strengthening historical and economic inequalities by limiting the perception of the value of the individual to their worth in the global market and furthering a reductive notion that success is proportional to effort regardless of starting conditions (Rizvi & Lingard, 2010, p. 78).  As state service provision is eroded by increasing privatization, civics education is ignored to secure funding by increasing standardized test scores in core subjects, and the tone of the prevailing discourse paints governments as disconnected and inefficient, education policy devalues citizenship within the state and bolsters the neoliberal view that acting in self-advancing ways to increase one’s status in the global market should supercede altruism and civic responsibility (Rizvi & Lingard, 2010, pp. 87–88). Rizvi & Lingard (2010) state that the goals of education include “ the development of knowledgeable individuals who are able to think rationally, the formation of sustainable community, and the realization of economic goals benefitting both individuals and their communities”  (pg. 71) The current neoliberal bent in education policy promises only to address economic.  Where then will individuals turn to develop the capability to act as rational, informed citizens of sustainable communities if success in a global market economy does not support the development of such individuals? What is the cost to be borne by global social welfare and democracy in the pursuit of economic gain?

Arafeh, S. (2014). Orienting Education Leaders to Education Policy. In N. M. Haynes, S. Arafeh, & C. McDaniels (Eds.), Educational leadership: Perspectives on preparation and practice. Toronto: UPA. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/brocku/detail.action?docID=1911841

Bell, L., & Stevenson, H. (2006). Educational policy, citizenship, and social justice. In L. Bell & H. Stevenson (Eds.), Education policy: process, themes and impact (pp. 58–73). London: Routledge.
Holland, P. A., & Lee, J. D. (2017). Results-based Financing in Education: Financing Results to Strengthen Systems. Washington, DC: World Bank.

Lingard, B., Martino, W., & Rezai-Rashti, G. (2013). Testing regimes, accountabilities and education policy: commensurate global and national developments. Journal of Education Policy, 28(5), 539–556.

Rizvi, F., & Lindgard, B. (Eds.). (2010). Education Policy and the Allocation of Values. In Globalizing Education Policy (pp. 77–92). New York: Routledge.

A colleague of mine recently made me aware of the work that she had been doing in her district on the “Keeping Aboriginal Students in School” (KASIS) project, a study investigating the challenges that indigenous learners face regarding life in school and what helps to keep them engaged and enrolled.The report is  interesting to no end, and set me to thinking on the connections between indigenous learning approaches and mindfulness-based interventions, and the role that mindfulness might possibly play in supporting indigenous learners in K-12 contexts. A quote from the KASIS report was particularly powerful and resonated with me:

​
​First, the phrase “I know nothing,” and Wallace’s first reflections on its meanings reminded me a lot of ideas like ‘beginner’s mind’ and how mindful practices can help learners to separate themselves from their preconceptions to develop curiosity, openness to learning, and understanding of interconnectedness (Kabat-Zinn, 1994). Wallace goes further in her reflections of the meaning of the phrase: 

It resonated with me in a number of ways. Cushner (2016) suggests that the skills required to experience positive interactions across cultures are curiosity, open-mindedness, empathy, and the ability to cope with the strong emotions that may result (pg. 2014). Wallace’s reflection on reconciliation contains a number of Cushner’s skills in action. Mindfulness programs, by design, seek to promote empathy and compassion (Mindful Schools, 2016, pg. 4). These connections make me curious as to the role that mindfulness training for teachers, students, and leaders might have to play in discussions and initiatives related to reconciliation as it is addressed in K-12 contexts. 

Of specific and personal interest to me are the challenges that young indigenous learners from remote northern communities face when attending school in southern schools away from their home communities. My hometown of Thunder Bay, Ontario, has been in the news a lot lately in articles bringing to light instances of institutional racism towards the city’s indigenous residents. Much of this was brought out in the open after the tragic passing of a number of young indigenous students living temporarily in the city to study at high school. Unfortunately, many students have no other option but to leave their families and travel to the city if they wish to complete their high school studies (“Deaths of 7 Indigenous students in Thunder Bay the responsibility of all Canadians: author”, 2017). 

Since the story broke, there have been so many heartbreaking interviews with young people sharing their stories, feelings, and fears. These young indigenous kids face many challenges in addition to the racism endemic in the community, many of which mirror those faced by international students. Hayden (2012) states that students face challenges when their native culture is not represented in their school life, and issues of identity resulting from lack of stability in their environment (pp. 64-67). Students involved in mindfulness training report that feelings of community, relationships with others, and a greater sense of ‘place’ are central to their experience, offering the possibility that mindfulness may help address such issues (Cheek, Abrams, Lipschitz, Vago, & Nakamura, 2017, p.  2564).  Students also reported “getting in touch with their inner self” and “feeling an intuition for me”, indicating that mindfulness training may support positive identity forming as well (p. 2573).

The KASIS report describes IK-SEL as “two ways of knowing and being, with a bridge”. Mindfulness has been shown to support SEL programming for teachers and students (Garner, Bender, & Fedor, 2017; Bakosh et al., 2016; Meiklejohn et al., 2012), and indigenous participants in a previous study in Manitoba related to a mindfulness-based intervention program in the field of health and well-being found the practices used to be effective and culturally acceptable and suitable (Dreger, Mackenzie, & McLeod, 2015). Furthermore, recent studies of mindful engagement with the natural world suggest that it can heal feelings of separateness from the land and that parallels exist between cognitive and spiritual outcomes in secular mindfulness practice and indigenous land-based spirituality (Crews & Besthorn, 2016; Dylan & Smallboy, 2016). I’m very interested to learn the thoughts of indigenous educators regarding the possible utility of mindful learning practices to form a part of that bridge in IK-SEL classroom applications. If there are any Indigenous educators out there reading this, please comment below!

B​akosh, L. S., Snow, R. M., Tobias, J. M., Houlihan, J. L., & Barbosa-Leiker, C. (2016). Maximizing Mindful Learning: Mindful Awareness Intervention Improves Elementary School Students’ Quarterly Grades. Mindfulness, 7(1), 59–67.

Cheek, J., Abrams, E. M., Lipschitz, D. L., Vago, D. R., & Nakamura, Y. (2017). Creating Novel School-Based Education Programs to Cultivate Mindfulness in Youth: What The Letters Told Us. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 26(9), 2564–2578.

Crews, D., & Besthorn, F. H. (2016). Ecosocialwork and transformed consciousness: Reflections on eco-mindfulness engagement with the silence of the natural world. Journal of Religion & Spirituality in Social Work: Social Thought, 35(1-2), 91–107.

Cushner, K. (2015). Development and assessment of intercultural competence. In M. Hayden, J. Levy, & J. J. Thompson (Eds.), SAGE Handbook of Research in International Education (pp. 200–216). London: SAGE.

Deaths of 7 Indigenous students in Thunder Bay the responsibility of all Canadians: author (2017, November 18), CBC News. Retrieved from: http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/thunder-bay/topic/Tag/First%20Nations%20student%20deaths%20inquest

Dreger, L. C., Mackenzie, C., & McLeod, B. (2015). Acceptability and Suitability of Mindfulness Training for Diabetes Management in an Indigenous Community. Mindfulness, 6(4), 885–898.

Dylan, A., & Smallboy, B. (2016). Land-based spirituality among the Cree of the Mushkegowuk territory. Journal of Religion & Spirituality in Social Work: Social Thought, 35(1-2), 108–119.

Garner, P. W., Bender, S. L., & Fedor, M. (2018). Mindfulness-based SEL programming to increase preservice teachers’ mindfulness and emotional competence. Psychology in the Schools, 55(4), 377–390.

Hayden, M. (2016). Third Culture Kids: the global nomads of transnational spaces of learning. In T. Bunnell, M. Hayden, & J. Thompson (Eds.), International Education (Vol. 3, pp. 59–77). London: SAGE.

Kabat-Zinn, J. (1994). Wherever You Go There You Are: Mindfulness Meditation in Everyday Life. New York: Hyperion.

Meiklejohn, J., Phillips, C., Freedman, M. L., Griffin, M. L., Biegel, G., Roach, A., … Saltzman, A. (2012). Integrating Mindfulness Training into K-12 Education: Fostering the Resilience of Teachers and Students. Mindfulness, 3(4), 291–307.

Mindful Schools (2016). Mindful educator essentials: Week 3 integrating mindfulness and
social-emotional learning programs [pdf].  Retrieved from: http://www.mindfulschools.org/courses/mod/book/view.php?id=31295&chapterid=28497

Wallace, S. L. (2016). Factors in Aboriginal Student Success: Final Report on the research project: KASIS - We’re in This Together: Keeping Aboriginal Students in School. School District No. 57 Aboriginal Education Department.

A recent conversation with a colleague in my doctoral cohort led to her posing the question: ‘what  [would ] education . . . look like if it were void of politics and if it was truly seen as a “gateway to wisdom” rather than a “road to money”’. I immediately thought back to some readings I have been doing recently regarding global citizenship, cosmopolitan competency, and mindfulness education in K-12 contexts. After such a detailed look these past weeks at the “nuts and bolts’ of financing and accountability, pondering this question was a not only a welcome diversion, but also an important chance to re-center the focus on why so many of us feel compelled to dedicate so much of our lives to our careers in education. Ultimately, it should all come back to giving kids the skills they need to live a good life. 

If education is to be seen as a “gateway to wisdom”, then it would be in the best interest of those providing education to at least try to answer the question “What is wisdom?” Not a small task, but an important one to pursue, given the need for school leaders to put forward compelling visions and work to ensure the coherence of school activities with those goals (Enacting School-Level Leadership Practices, 2014, Uplifting Leadership, 2014; Schleicher, 2015, p. 9). Unfortunately, a standard definition of wisdom is elusive (Staudinger,  2013, p. 6). Staudinger cites G. Stanley Hall who defined wisdom as “the emergence of a meditative attitude, philosophical calmness, impartiality, and the desire to draw moral lessons” (p. 4).  Distinguishing personal wisdom from general wisdom, she goes on to define it as “individuals’ insight into themselves, their own life” (p. 4). Vervaeke and Ferraro (2013), approaching wisdom from the perspective of cognitive science, define wisdom as “a self-transformation of cognitive processing that enhances the quality of life in some way” (p. 21).  They go further to state that wisdom involves insights into “one’s own cognition, the patterns and processes of one’s learning and perception, . . . involving] increased abilities of self-understanding and self-transformation” (p. 25). To facilitate the development of this capacity, they cite research findings that show that wisdom development is complex and involves inter- and intrapersonal factors as well as external factors across the lifespan (p. 30). 

Given the above, how might educators go about developing curricula to promote the development of wisdom in their students? Luckily for us, many of the traits and skills put forward as components of global citizenship curricula and elements of cosmopolitan consciousness and international mindedness have correlates in personal wisdom development. Glick and Bluck (2013) see wisdom as being comprised of a sense of mastery, openness to experience, reflectivity, emotion regulation,  and empathy (p. 80). Cushner (2016) posits that the skills required for intercultural competency are interpersonal in nature and require curiosity, open-mindedness, empathy, and the ability to cope with strong emotions that may result from intercultural communications (p. 204). Oxfam’s (2015) Education for Global Citizenship: A Guide for Schools offers numerous skills it deems meaningful to global citizens, such as creative thinking, empathy, self-awareness and reflection, and interpersonal communication (p. 8).  Rizvi (2008), in defining epistemic virtues in support of cosmopolitan learning, also puts forward an empathic understanding of others and reflexivity as traits that should be developed in international education (pp. 32-33). There is quite a lot of overlap between wisdom and international mindedness in terms of the skills they comprise.

If the above are taken to be the skills and competencies required for the development of both wisdom and global citizenship, then how can educators approach developing these skills in their students? I’d posit that mindfulness training provides a good place to begin, as it supports the development of a number of the skills mentioned above. 

Already, social and emotional learning (SEL) programs are being introduced in many schools and combined with modified mindfulness-based stress reduction (MBSR) programming to help students deal with strong emotions and be mindful of their actions (Mindful Schools, 2016; Hyde & Frias, 2015, p. 92). Such programs have been shown to positively address interpersonal challenges (Zoogman et al., 2015, p. 292).  Students also reported “getting in touch with their inner self” and “feeling an intuition for me” (Cheek, Abrams, Lipschitz, Vago, & Nakamura, 2017, p.  2573) indicative or intrapersonal learning and development. Mindfulness programs, by design, seek to promote empathy and compassion (Mindful Schools, 2016, p. 4), Neuroscientific studies have shown a correlation between mindfulness training and the development of brain structures related to empathy and self-reflection (Meiklejohn et al., 2012, pg. 293).

​For many of us, education as a “path to wisdom” is a concept at the philosophical root of our work as educators. However, the increasing focus on academic achievement as measured by standardized large-scale tests (Bruns et al., 2011, p. 29) runs the risk of diverting attention away from such factors of learning and narrowing our definitions of success (NORRAG, 2016, p. 9). Thankfully, in addition to supporting student academic achievement (Bakosh, Snow, Tobias, Houlihan, & Barbosa-Leiker, 2016, p. 65) mindfulness studies in K-12 contexts can also support the development of education as a route to greater personal wisdom.

Bakosh, L. S., Snow, R. M., Tobias, J. M., Houlihan, J. L., & Barbosa-Leiker, C. (2016). Maximizing Mindful Learning: Mindful Awareness Intervention Improves Elementary School Students’ Quarterly Grades. Mindfulness, 7(1), 59–67.

Bruns, B., Filmer, D., & Patrinos, H. A. (2011). Making Schools Work; New Evidence on Accountability Reforms. Washington, DC: The World Bank.

Cheek, J., Abrams, E.M., Lipschitz, D.L., Vago, D.R., & Nakamura, Y. (2017). Creating novel school-based education programs to cultivate mindfulness in youth: What the letters told us. Journal of Child and Family Studies. 26(9), 2564-2578. 

Cushner, K. (2016). Development and assessment of intercultural competence. In Hayden, M., Levy, J., & Thompson, J. J. (eds.) The Sage handbook of research in international education. London: Sage. 200-216.

Enacting School-Level Leadership Practices. (2014). Canada: International School Leadership. Retrieved from ​https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=13&v=PmeKIdw1-8I

Glick, J., & Bluck, S. (2013) The MORE life experience model: A theory of the development of personal wisdom. In M. Ferrari & N.M. Weststrate (Eds.), The Scientific Study of Personal Wisdom: From Contemplative Traditions to Neuroscience (pp. 75-98). New York:Springer.

Hyde, A. M., & Frias, E. L. (2015). Mindfulness Education and an Education in Mindfulness: Still Seeking a Less Coercive “Wheel in the Head.” Journal for Peace and Justice Studies, 25(1), 81–104.

Meiklejohn, J., Phillips, C., Freedman, M. L., Griffin, M. L., Biegel, G., Roach, A., . . .Saltzman, A. (2012). Integrating mindfulness training into K-12 education: Fostering the resilience of teachers and students. Mindfulness, 3(4), 291-307. doi:10.1007/s12671-012-0094-5

Mindful Schools (2016). Mindful educator essentials: Week 3 integrating mindfulness and social-emotional learning programs [pdf].  Retrieved from: http://www.mindfulschools.org/courses/mod/book/view.php?id=31295&chapterid=28497

NORRAG. (2016). Learning from Learning Assessments: The Politics and Policies of Attaining Quality Education: Roundtable Report. Geneva: Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies.

OXFAM. (2015). Education for Global Citizenship: A guide for schools. Oxford: Oxfam GB. Retrieved from: https://www.oxfam.org.uk/education/resources/education-for-global-citizenship-a-guide-for-schools

Rizvi, F. (2008). Epistemic Virtues and Cosmopolitan Learning. The Australian Educational Researcher, 35(1).

Staudinger, U.M. (2013). The need to distinguish personal from general wisdom: A short history and empirical evidence. In M. Ferrari & N.M. Weststrate (Eds.), The Scientific Study of Personal Wisdom: From Contemplative Traditions to Neuroscience (pp. 3-20). New York:Springer.

Schleicher, A. (2015). Schools for 21st-Century Learners: Strong Leaders, Confident Teachers, Innovative Approaches,. OECD.

Uplifting Leadership. (2014). [Online video]. International School Leadership. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=2&v=9V0GaLRmq20

Vervaecke, J., & Ferraro, L. (2013). Relevance, meaning, and the cognitive science of wisdom. In M. Ferrari & N.M. Weststrate (Eds.), The Scientific Study of Personal Wisdom: From Contemplative Traditions to Neuroscience (pp. 21-52). New York:Springer. 

Zoogman, S., Goldberg, S. B., Hoyt, W. T., & Miller, L. (2015). Mindfulness interventions with youth: A meta-analysis. Mindfulness, 6(2), 290-302.

Despite attempts to address the global learning crisis, the widespread illiteracy and innumeracy persistent in developing nations worldwide, education systems in many low- and middle-income countries continue to be plagued by service delivery failures and programs that fail to produce effective learning in schools (UNESCO, 2013, p. 2; Bruns et al., 2011, p. 1). A number of factors contribute to these service delivery failures. Inequitable spending is often skewed to favor wealthy regions and individuals (Bruns et al., 2011, p. 7). Funding leaks see money diverted before it reaches schools, such as in the case of Uganda’s capitation grants, of which initially only 20% of intended funds made it to their intended recipients (Bruns et al., 2011, p. 7; UWAZI, 2010, p. 8). High teacher absence rates, low quality teaching, and lack of class time spent on instruction results in poor learning outcomes (Bruns et al., 2011, pp. 7-9; Watkins, 2012a).There is a need for increased accountability to address these and other issues in education service provision in developing nations (Bruns et al., 2011, p. 2).

​Bruns et al. (2011) offer three promising routes towards more education accountability in developing nations: information for accountability, school-based management, and teacher accountability measures like contract tenure reforms and pay for performance. 

​Countries around the world, including developing nations, are increasingly carrying out national and international standardized learning assessments and leveraging their use in  policy-making and reform and as indicators for monitoring and evaluating progress and learning achievement regionally and cross-nationally (Bruns et al., 2011, p. 29; NORRAG, 2016, pg. 4; Lockheed, 2016, pg. 8). Unfortunately, actual reforms and policies are often only weakly influenced by these assessments and data is frequently misused (Lockheed, 2016, p. 30; NORRAG, 2016, p. 4). Also, some mid- and low-income nations refrain from sharing results or participating due to feelings of shame or concerns about negative public confidence and pressure to turn towards private sector solutions over low scores (Lockheed, 2016, p. 27; NORRAG, 2016, pg. 7).

​Information sharing at the community level seems fraught with fewer negatives. Citizen report cards and parent-teacher associations have been used to increase social accountability and parent involvement in a number of developing nations (Bruns et al., 2011, pp. 13–14; Watkins, 2012b), supporting parents and students in choosing schools and making parents aware of issues to empower them to lobby for reform (Bruns et al., 2011, pp. 14, 34). Key success factors when using information for accountability are ensuring widespread availability, ease of understanding, addressing the local context, and including paths for stakeholders to offer input (Bruns et al., 2011, pg. 72). 

​The decentralization of school-level decision-making is being implemented by increasing numbers of developing nations to improve efficiency and learning outcomes and overcome financial constraints (Bruns et. al, 2011, pg. 88; Arunatilake & Jayawardena, 2010, pg. 44). Parent involvement is often sought out, usually through creating school committees to monitor outcomes and processes and take part in planning and budgeting (Bruns et al., 2011, pp. 15–16). Attempts to decentralize effectively can be hindered by low-capacity local administrators and lack of ability of the community to voice their concerns (Arunatilake & Jayawardena, 2010, p. 46). Norms and values about education specific to local context may also reduce parent voice and participation (Phlong, 2018). Decentralization reforms are supported by accounting for such capacity issues, establishing short- and long-term process and outcome goals and indicators, and basing interventions on evidence (Bruns et al., 2011, pp. 129-130; Barrera-Osorio et al., 2009, pg. 101).

​Teachers represent the most important input in the educational process, with great variations in student achievement and growth based on student experiences with individual teachers, but fixed salary schedules, lifetime tenures, and advancement based on inputs rather than performance provide little incentive for extra effort and innovation (Kingdon et al., 2014, p. 14; Bruns et al., pp. 18-19, 142). Teacher incentives such as contract tenure and merit-based pay bonuses offer the possibility of addressing such concerns without the need for broad, system-wide reform (Bruns et al., 2016, pg.19).Contract tenure leads to greater accountability, and localized hiring promotes closer monitoring of teacher performance (Bruns et al., 2016, pg. 19). The short-term impact of such reforms is good if power to sign and renew contracts is decentralized, but weak oversight, de facto guaranteed contract renewal, and ability to transfer off contract and into the civil service decrease its power (Bruns et al., 2011, pg. 156-157). Providing teachers with merit-based bonus pay based on inputs or outcomes is one of the strongest levers for influencing their performance and, when bonuses are based on student achievement, are an example of results-based financing that focuses on the learner rather than just schooling (Bruns et al., 2011, p. 2; Holland & Lee, 2017, p. 5). Key factors in the success of such reforms are the predictability of the incentive, which should be attainable but not unchallenging and the size of the bonus provided (Bruns et al., 2011, pg. 189). Care should be taken to ensure that the measured outcomes can be affected by the teacher’s work, as poor assessment outcomes may often result due to outside influences like widespread malnutrition (Bruns et al., 2011, p. 18; Holland & Lee, 2017, p. 12; Watkins, 2012b). 

In this ‘era of accountability’, demands on education systems for transparency in demonstrating the efficient and effective use of public resources are common worldwide, and the importance of school effectiveness to the field of development means that developing nations are no exception  (Shaked & Scheckter, 2013, p. 773; Bruns, Filmer, & Patrinos, 2011, p. ix). The challenges facing low- and middle-income countries in implementing accountability reforms, such as lack of local capacity, funding, cultural barriers to community engagement, and lack of political will need to be borne in mind, especially when tying the implementation of such policies to results-based funding disbursements  (Lockheed, 2016, p. 26; Bates, 2013, p. 39; Phlong, 2018; Kingdon et al., 2014, p. 3; Holland & Lee, 2017, p. 14). Addressing the global learning crisis will require that students have access to quality resources, learning environments, and teachers, and ensuring accountability from school to ministry levels can help to make this happen. (UNESCO, 2013; Bruns et al., 2011, p. 2).

Arunatilake, N., & Jayawardena, P. (2010). Formula funding and decentralized management of schools—Has it improved resource allocation in schools in Sri Lanka? International Journal of Educational Development, 30(1), 44–53.

Barrera-Osorio, F., Fasih, T., Patrinos, H. A., & Santibanez, L. (2009). Decentralized Decision-Making in Schools: The Theory and Evidence on School-Based Management. Washington, DC: The World Bank.

Bates, A. (2013). Transcending systems thinking in education reform: implications for policy-makers and school leaders. Journal of Education Policy, 28(1), 38–54.

Bruns, B., Filmer, D. and Patrinos, H.A. (2011). Making schools work: New evidence on accountability reforms. Washington DC: World Bank. Available at http://siteresources.worldbank.org/EDUCATION/Resources/2782001298568319076/makingschoolswork.pdf

Holland, P. & Lee, J. (2017). Results-based financing in education: Financing results to strengthen systems. Washington DC: World Bank. Available at http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/715791489054110215/pdf/113265-REVISEDRBF-Approach-Final-Digital.pdf

Kingdon, G. G., Little, A., Aslam, M., Rawal, S., Moe, T., Patrinos, H., … Sharma, S. K. (2014). A rigorous review of the political economy of education systems in developing countries. Final Report. Department for International Development.

Lockheed, M.E. (2016). Measures that Matter: Learning outcome targets for Sustainable Development Goal 4 – An examination of national, regional and international learning assessments. Global Education Monitoring Report. Available at http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0024/002458/245842E.pdf

NORRAG (2016). Learning from Learning Assessments: The Politics and Policies of Attaining Quality Education. Roundtable Report. Geneva: NORRAG. Available at http://www.norrag.org/fileadmin/Workshop_Reports/Learning_from_Learning_Assessmen ts_Roundtable_Report_June_2016.pdf 

Phlong, P. (2018, June 16). Re: Policy vs Implementation, experiences from Tanzania [online discussion forum post]. Retrieved from: https://owl.uwo.ca/portal/site/55ec12c0-3680-4226-bafc-de0b479d74b3/tool/3802fa22-7d83-4060-988b-de19402d6e90/discussionForum/message/dfViewMessage

Shaked, H., & Schechter, C. (2013). Seeing wholes: The concept of systems thinking and its implementation in school leadership. International Review of Education / Internationale Zeitschrift Für Erziehungswissenschaft / Revue Internationale de l’Education, 59(6), 771–791.

UNESCO. (2013). The Global Learning Crisis: Why every child deserves a quality education. Paris: UNESCO.

UWAZI. (2010). Capitation grant for education: When will it make a difference. Policy brief TZ.08/2010 (Version Policy brief TZ.08/2010.). Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. Retrieved from http://www.twaweza.org/uploads/files/Capitation%20Grant%20for%20Primary%20Educaton.pdf

Watkins, K. (2012a, July 26). Holding out for the super-voucher: Kevin Watkins responds to Justin Sandefur on private v public education. Retrieved June 3, 2018, from https://oxfamblogs.org/fp2p/holding-out-for-the-super-voucher-kevin-watkins-responds-to-justin-sandefur-on-private-v-public-education/

Watkins, K. (2012b, August 10). Education wonkwar: the final salvo. Kevin Watkins responds to Justin Sandefur on public v private (and the reader poll is still open). Retrieved June 3, 2018, from https://oxfamblogs.org/fp2p/education-wonkwar-the-final-salvo-kevin-watkins-responds-to-justin-sandefur-on-public-v-private-and-the-reader-poll-is-still-open/

According to some estimates, by the end of the 21st century half of the world’s children will live in Africa (Bold et al., 2017, p. 197 citing You, Hug, & Anthony, 2014)). Currently, millions of children in low-income countries, including many in the African continent, complete their primary education lacking basic literacy and numeracy skills, a situation that UNESCO (UNESCO, 2013, p. 2) has referred to as The Global Learning Crisis. Despite, and perhaps partly as a result of, greatly increased enrollment in primary education in developing nations, the low-quality instruction, flat learning curves, poor outcomes, and regional discrepancies in education in low-income nations remain a challenge of global development (Arunatilake & Jayawardena, 2010, pp. 44–47; Chapman, Burton, & Werner, 2010, p. 77; Sandefur, 2012a; UWAZI, 2010, p. 3; Watkins, 2012a). 

Global level actors like the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and World Bank exert significant influence on decision-making and education policy development in developing nations, and governments feel pressure to enact suggested reforms that bring with them grants and funding (Kingdon et al., 2014, p. 2; Steiner-Khamsi, 2014, p. 156). However, there is little evidence to support the effectiveness of some of these reforms; the Education for All Fast Track Initiative may have actually disrupted national structures and weakened reform for quality education in some instances (Kingdon et al., 2014, p. 20).  Strong and motivated central leadership is needed within developing nations to chart a course out of the global education crisis (Kingdon et al., 2014, p. 19).

Unfortunately, such leadership currently seems to be in short supply. State control of education in developing nations is generally weak and of low capacity, providing little support to districts and schools and resulting in lower student performance (Bold et al., 2017, p. 186; Kingdon et al., 2014, p. 4). The state governance that is present is often corrupt and steeped in clientelism and patronage, pushing states to expand access to, but not quality of education (Kingdon et al., 2014, p. 2).  In Africa, leaders have done little meaningful work in in transforming education for the better, with policy-making too often shaped by commercial interests (Dlamini, 2008, p. 3).  In 2006, Uganda adopted free Universal Secondary Education (USE) as a means of garnering political support with little attention to system capacity or involvement of school-level stakeholders (Chapman et al., 2010, p. 77). In Tanzania, state disbursements of capitation funds to schools are typically less than budgets suggest, deviate significantly from the mean at the district level, and often late, unpredictably timed, or parceled in amounts too small to be effectively utilized (UWAZI, 2010, pp. 7–9). Furthermore, weak central oversight to ensure proper resource use has resulted in the use of pirated resources of dubious quality, and books left unpurchased or unused in storage (UWAZI, 2010, pp. 7–9).

Clearly, stronger state governance and leadership in educational policy-making and oversight is needed, as weak local administration and the limited ability of local communities to voice their preferences limits the benefit of decentralization in developing countries compared to more developed nations with strong democracies, social infrastructure, and empowered citizenry (Arunatilake & Jayawardena, 2010, p. 46; Barrera-Osorio, Fasih, Patrinos, & Santibanez, 2009, p. 10). Developing nations have been shown to benefit from centralized control, and the scope of the issues faced in developing nations, from extreme malnutrition, child labor, and gender disparity require action and financing at the national level to address (Kingdon et al., 2014, p. 29; Watkins, 2012b). 

According to Patrick Awuah, founder of Ashesi University College in Ghana, “Africa can only be transformed by enlightened leaders and . . .  the manner in which we educate our leaders is fundamental to progress on this continent.” (Awuah, 2017, 0:30). Charting a course out of the global education crisis will require leaders in developing nations to support an increase in democratic processes, a reduction in corruption, and a shift from eurocentric and colonial policy and practice (Dlamini, 2008, p. 3; Kingdon et al., 2014, p. 3). Governments need to increase their capacity to support education at the district and school level, provide equitable public financing for early education,  and ensure accountability from the ministry to the classroom level through inspections and development of social accountability infrastructure (Arunatilake & Jayawardena, 2010, pp. 46–52; Watkins, 2012a, 2012b). Where leadership failures are too expansive to quickly address, some nations may benefit from accessing balanced solutions from the private sector temporarily as a more timely way to address student learning needs in their individual context (Sandefur, 2012b; Watkins, 2012b). 

​The right to an education is universal and most governments have promised to protect this right of their citizens in their national constitutions (UNESCO, 2013, p. 1). It is the responsibility of governments in the developing world, with support from international aid providers as required,  to provide the leadership needed to keep this promise and begin charting a course out of the global learning crisis. 

Arunatilake, N., & Jayawardena, P. (2010). Formula funding and decentralized management of schools—Has it improved resource allocation in schools in Sri Lanka? International Journal of Educational Development, 30(1), 44–53.

Awuah, P. (2017). How to educate leaders? Liberal arts. Ted.com. Retrieved 7 June 2017, from https://www.ted.com/talks

Barrera-Osorio, F., Fasih, T., Patrinos, H. A., & Santibanez, L. (2009). Decentralized Decision-Making in Schools: The Theory and Evidence on School-Based Management. Washington, DC: The World Bank.

Bold, T., Filmer, D., Martin, G., Molina, E., Stacy, B., Rockmore, C., … Wane, W. (2017). Enrollment without Learning: Teacher Effort, Knowledge, and Skill in Primary Schools in Africa. The Journal of Economic Perspectives: A Journal of the American Economic Association, 31(4), 185–204.

Chapman, D. W., Burton, L., & Werner, J. (2010). Universal secondary education in Uganda: The head teachers’ dilemma. International Journal of Educational Development, 30(1), 77–82.

Dlamini, S. N. (2008). Introduction. In S. N. Dlamini (Ed.), New Directions in African Education: Challenges and Possibilities (pp. 1–14). Calgary: University of Calgary Press.

Kingdon, G. G., Little, A., Aslam, M., Rawal, S., Moe, T., Patrinos, H., … Sharma, S. K. (2014). A rigorous review of the political economy of education systems in developing countries. Final Report. Department for International Development.

Sandefur, J. (2012a, July 25). Waiting for Superman in Lahore: do poor people need private schools? Guest post by Justin Sandefur. Retrieved June 3, 2018, from https://oxfamblogs.org/fp2p/waiting-for-superman-in-lahore-do-poor-people-need-private-schools-guest-post-by-justin-sandefur/

Sandefur, J. (2012b, August 9). Private schools or public? Justin Sandefur responds to Kevin Watkins (and this time you can vote). Retrieved June 3, 2018, from https://oxfamblogs.org/fp2p/private-schools-or-public-justin-sandefur-responds-to-kevin-watkins/

Steiner-Khamsi, G. (2014). Cross-national policy borrowing: understanding reception and translation. Asia Pacific Journal of Education, 34(2), 153–167.

UNESCO. (2013). The Global Learning Crisis: Why every child deserves a quality education. Paris: UNESCO.

UWAZI. (2010). Capitation grant for education: When will it make a difference. Policy brief TZ.08/2010 (Version Policy brief TZ.08/2010.). Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. Retrieved from http://www.twaweza.org/uploads/files/Capitation%20Grant%20for%20Primary%20Educaton.pdf

Watkins, K. (2012a, July 26). Holding out for the super-voucher: Kevin Watkins responds to Justin Sandefur on private v public education. Retrieved June 3, 2018, from https://oxfamblogs.org/fp2p/holding-out-for-the-super-voucher-kevin-watkins-responds-to-justin-sandefur-on-private-v-public-education/
​
Watkins, K. (2012b, August 10). Education wonkwar: the final salvo. Kevin Watkins responds to Justin Sandefur on public v private (and the reader poll is still open). Retrieved June 3, 2018, from https://oxfamblogs.org/fp2p/education-wonkwar-the-final-salvo-kevin-watkins-responds-to-justin-sandefur-on-public-v-private-and-the-reader-poll-is-still-open/