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/

One of a few prevailing controversies in international education is the idea of a Western neoliberal agenda to colonize and enculturate other nations through the medium of globalization and neoliberal education policies (Kingdon et al., 2014, p. 19). Certainly, many developed nations recognize and capitalize on the benefit of exporting their national educational trademarks globally, drawing in international students to post-secondary institutions, exporting educational resources, and building satellite campuses abroad to the tune of billions of dollars  in profit (Steiner-Khamsi, 2014, p. 158). Moreover, this transfer is generally unidirectional from North to South or West to East; and can be coercive due to the international education funding provided by various NGOs to developing nations that choose to adopt certain “best practices” as defined by the OECD, IEA, or World Bank  (Steiner-Khamsi, 2014, pp. 154–156), despite little evidence to support their effectiveness and their potential to disrupt national structures and weaken reform when implemented (Kingdon et al., 2014, p. 20). 

In her investigation of cross-national educational policy borrowing. Steiner-Khamsi (2013) presents an intriguing argument that turns this idea on its head. She posits that “globalization is not an intervention that is introduced by external forces but . . . it is stakeholders in the system that use the semantics of globalization or international standards . . . to shake up the power dynamic in a system.” (Steiner-Khamsi, 2014, p. 160). In her view, domestic policy debates result in policy-makers seeking support for their positions through global education policies or borrowing policies from global sources in order to build coalitions and compromise around externally-sourced “third reform possibilities” (Steiner-Khamsi, 2014, pp. 155–156). Actors in the domestic context, in other words, apply the rhetoric of globalization, in order to build pressure for change to suit their local agendas ((Steiner-Khamsi, 2014, p. 157). She goes so far as to say that many western created standards and practices wind up as little more than “empty vessels . . . filled with local meaning”. (Steiner-Khamsi, 2014, p. 157)

While the greater influence that global actors have on decision-making regarding educational policy in developing nations is undeniable (Kingdon et al., 2014, p. 20), Steiner-Khamsi’s view puts more agency in the hands of the domestic policy-maker, and shifts the narrative from one of all-powerful neo-liberal globalizers forcing policy changes on unwitting and unwilling developing nations to one that involves a more reciprocal balance of power and benefit: Western globalizing nations produce educational products for export abroad, and local actors select from what is on order to fuel and credentialize ther domestic political rhetoric. 

Unfortunately, corruption and patronage politics often present in the governance of developing nations means that improved student outcomes are often not the top priority for politicians or educators when deciding on policy reform (Kingdon et al., 2014, p. 2). One need only look to the haphazard and politically-motivated implementation of Universal primary and secondary education in Uganda detailed by Chapman, Burton, and Werner (2010) initiated in order to garner votes from parents and business-owners but with no attention paid to system capacity or involvement of head teachers (pg. 77). Ultimately, the initiatives were successful politically, but resulted in a drop in the quality of education nationwide (pg. 77). 

​Clearly, despite the elevation of domestic policy-makers in Steiner-Khamsi’s (2014) view of globalization and transnational educational policy borrowing, the outlook for students when warnings against transnational policy adoption are ignored is not positive. In fact, given the disingenuous motives of some local policy-makers in many developing nations (Steiner-Khamsi, 2014, p. 4), the political will required to develop capacity and delivery systems to effectively implement the strategies borrowed is questionable (Kingdon et al., 2014, p. 3).

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.

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.

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

​Bunnell, T. (2015). International schools and international curricula: A changing relationship. In: 
Hayden, M., Levy, J., & Thompson, J. J., (eds.) The Sage Handbook of Research in International Education (2nd ed.). London, U. K.: Sage. 325-336.

Cambridge, J. (2013). Dilemmas of international education: A Bernsteinian analysis. In Pearce, R. (ed.) International education and schools: Moving beyond the first 40 years. Oxford, UK: Bloomsbury Publications Ltd. 183-204.

Dunne, S., and Edwards, J. (2010). International schools as sites of social change. Journal of Research in International Education, 9(1), 24-39.

Hayden, M. (2012). Third culture kids: The global nomads of transnational spaces of learning. In Bunnell, T., Hayden, M., & Thompson, J. (eds.), SAGE Library of Educational Thought and Practice - International Education, Vol. 3. London, UK: Sage Publications Ltd.

Khalifa, M.A., Gooden, M.A., & Davis, J.E. (2016). Culturally responsive school leadership: A synthesis of the literature. Review of Educational Research, 86(4): 1272-1311.

Pearce, R. (ed.) (2013). Student Diversity: The core challenge of international schools: Moving 
beyond the first 40 years. London, UK: Bloomsbury Academic. 61-84.

Shields, C. (2010). Transformative Leadership: Working for equity in diverse contexts. Education Administration Quarterly, 46(4): 558-589.

Skelton, M. (2016). What should students learn in international schools? In Hayden, M., & 
Thompson, J. J. (eds.) International schools: Current issues and future prospects. Symposium Books, Oxford. 71-83.

Tate, N. (2012). Challenges and pitfalls facing international education in a post-international world. Journal of Research in International Education, 11, 205-217.

Taylor, M. (2015). International schools - creative communities with a cause. The International Schools Journal, 35(1), 16-20.