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/

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.