This presentation is a follow-up to the discussions at the International Workshop on Diversifying Educational Delivery System, held in Gaborone, Botswana, 23-26 June 1999¹. It intends to highlight the challenges of moving towards a more integrated system of education for children and youth in the light of the enhanced concerns about achieving quality Education for All (EFA) in the early part of the next century. In doing this the paper addresses not only priorities for action at the systems level but also implications for action at the level of so-called "NFE provisions," given their need to become embedded within a wider and more diverse systemic framework.

The literature emerging in the run-up to the review of a ten-year effort to promote Education for All highlights serious deficiencies in the achievement of the goals set at the Jomtien Conference in 1990. As summarised in the Oxfam report:

• Today, 125 million primary school-age children are not in school; most of them are girls.

• Another 150 million children start primary school but drop out before they have completed four years of education, the vast majority before they have acquired basic literacy skills.

• In much of the developing world the education provided to children is of abysmal quality.

• The right of the world’s children to an education remains one of the most widely and systematically violated of all human rights².

The figures as regards Sub-Saharan Africa are worse. The same report concludes that in this continent "on current trends, 54 million children will be out of school by 2015." By the same date the region will account for three-quarters of all children not enrolled in school. For Africa to get on track for a 2015 target of universal enrollment, it will have to raise enrollments by 22 million children over the next five years, over and above current trends.

While it can be appreciated that agencies have become extremely concerned about the limitations of the post-Jomtien efforts to achieve EFA, there is a danger that the discussion about educational development is reduced to the basic question of how do we get more "bums on seats" in conventional classrooms. For the sake of the future of millions of children, the debate must be as much on the nature and quality of the education that is provided as on access per se. In fact, a more pervasive discussion on what constitutes the essence of quality basic education for children and youngsters could also affect our efforts to promote participation in such education.

A "bums on seats" debate avoids the significance of the statistical presentation of "participation in primary education" as the number of children attending conventional primary schooling, as throughout the post-Jomtien years the primary school has been regarded as the main institution responsible for the provision of basic education for children. In the same vein, all the benefits usually associated with education have been assumed to apply only to this type of provision. This presentation has evaded thorough discussions on what "basic education" goes on outside the schools that may be worthy of recognition. Moreover, it tends to downplay questions about what goes on in these institutions and why it is that so many parents have difficulties in letting their children go to school.

It remains that in all likelihood large numbers of children will continue to be barred from primary education, in the standard definition, as they may

• not have the most basic resources necessary to acquire basic education through "normal" schooling, or

• have other essential social or economic obligations preventing them from spending a major part of the day at school (or traveling to and from), or

• decide (or be told by their parents) that what is on offer is not relevant in relation to what is expected.

Beyond this problematic of demand there is the issue of the extent to which countries and communities can afford to produce the kind of physical and human school environment that is considered standard. Foreign assistance cannot be the driving force upon which all plans are to be based—as is actually proposed.

The inability to provide quality education for all in accordance with established prescriptions compels us foremost to rethink the premises upon which the present education system is based and re-negotiate with learners and communities what basic education should be all about and how it should be provided. It constitutes a challenge to take the "expanded vision" of Jomtien further and explore systematically how the limitations of the existing formal school system can be transcended through explicit recognition of the environment in which education is to take place. This implies greater sensitivity to both to the needs and interests of communities and to the conditions under which education for all can be ensured. In the process an explicit distinction needs to be made between what is to be learned and how and where the learning is provided. It is in this context that the strengths and weaknesses of alternative opportunities for learning, including NFE provisions, can be re-examined.

An expanded vision of the Jomtien agenda would now, more than any time, take cognizance of a number of premises that impact on what is to be offered, how, and under what conditions. The main premises can be presented as follows.

There is a diversity among learners, including among children in the school going age-group, in terms of:

• social and economic circumstances: There is an increasing number of children who have social and/or economic obligations—some of which are not new, some of which are—such as children having to look after siblings as a result of HIV/Aids.

• learning needs. This refers not only to children requiring "special education" provisions but also to those who need supplementary "life skills," vocational skills, remedial or additional language competencies.

• cultural and religious traditions: Many communities have not relinquished their assumed duty to provide learning that recognises their own traditions, even in the face of state resistance.

There are variations in the mix of inputs available for education: across countries and localities the inputs officially required for school education may not be available in the ratios and combinations or in the manner that may be desirable from a conventional perspective. These inputs concern:

C teaching staff with appropriate qualifications

C educational spaces

C resources for learning

• educational technologies.

Poor availability of one input may need to be compensated through increased attention to others, such as lower qualified staff by high-quality learning materials. The interpretations of the very inputs themselves may need to be adjusted, such as the "quality" of teaching staff or what constitute appropriate "educational spaces."

There is much learning ongoing outside the conventional school system that is not officially recognized and may not be captured in official data collection. This involves:

• childhood learning in homes and communities, including much locally relevant knowledge and skills. Although children enter schooling with this wealth of prior learning outcomes, it is generally not used as a basis for new learning.

• ongoing informal learning in social and work situations: The relevance of informal learning and its relationship with school learning has still not been sufficiently explored and captured in more comprehensive methods for assessing learning achievement.

• organised and structured forms of "non-formal" learning involving private and community-based provisions such as community schools, Koranic schools, open and distance learning arrangements, and traditional apprenticeships.

The "demand-side" of education, constituting individual learners, parents and communities, with their ever stronger interest in the value of learning, its quality and in notions of equity, can no longer be ignored. It tends to be particularly expressed in concerns regarding:

• the social and economic value of outcomes in respect to improving quality of life and access to work

• the quality of institutional provision for learning

• attention to home languages as well as access to languages of power and economy

• participation in learning as a lifelong possibility

• equity as regards personal and social costs of education.

There is a de facto wide diversity in the resourcing of education:

• The state does not have a monopoly of subsidization.

• Individuals and communities tend to be strongly interested in contributing towards what they regard as good education.

• There is an expanding interest of the private sector in playing a role: this tends to be reflected in physical facilities, in technological applications and learning resources, as well as in school-business linkages.

Although since the days of Coombs there is nothing new in recognising the important roles of different types of education, the insight required at the end of this century is that access to meaningful basic education for all can only be assured if there is wide recognition of the need for diversity in education provisioning. Given the continued relevance of social, economic, and political functions of education, such recognition of diversity is only possible in the context of maintaining essential parameters of a formal education system. Thus it has become necessary to argue for a transcendence of a de facto existence of separate systems and a move towards a unified but multi-form education system within which a variety of modalities for learning can exist side-by-side, but with visible equivalencies and identifiable linkages among them.

In the above frame of thinking, the main debate would not be about how to build more schools, or how to get rural children, girl-heads of households, nomadic children to adapt to a standard school regime, or how to enforce a unified national curriculum. It would be foremost about the nature of essential skills and competencies, the core characteristics of a quality learning environment for children wherever they are, and harmonising state interests to maintain a national frame of equitable and relevant formal education with individual and community demand for education that suits their needs and circumstances. Such debate could be galvanised by enhanced research that would produce profiles of categories of children and youth directly affected by the premises outlined above.

As discussed in the Gaborone workshop, a system of "integrated diversity" might need to adopt several key characteristics.

In pedagogical terms the system would follow an outcomes-based approach, whereby learning outcomes are defined in terms of a basic knowledge and skills profile allowing for locally adapted teaching and learning strategies and content.

The common basic profile enables core achievement (not necessarily including all learning) to be assessed through standardised instruments leading to common certification.

Within such overarching framework it would be acceptable to promote a differentiated set of provisions for learning, within which the conventional school will be probably be the main form but by no means the only one.

• A support infrastructure for administrative and professional services accessible to all provisions within the system.

• A funding framework that ensures acceptable equity in access to state subsidisation.

• An overall quality assurance system that enables diverse forms of provision to grow but within a frame of strict criteria for access and quality.

Within this context the conventional distinction between formal and non-formal education would become largely irrelevant. If the "formal" essentially refers to a provision operating within the above systems framework, then many "non-formal" arrangements could become formal while preserving, if not enhancing, their non-conventional features. "Non-formal," in this case only remains relevant in respect to learning arrangements that have mainly an intrinsic value and need not align themselves to the formal system’s umbrella (such as learning a language or picking up a technical skill). Whereas provisions for learning could be different with respect to a variety of inputs, they would develop equity where it matters most: in the outcomes and future value of the learning acquired.

The above notion of a formal system would provide for an overarching framework within which different premises, as outlined before, may get the attention they deserve. Most importantly it would allow for the straitjacket within which the conventional school system operates to be broken and for essential constraints in its provisioning to be addressed, since creative solutions are possible without affecting the essential "formal" dimensions of the learning. Formal recognition can more easily be provided to traditionally non-formal schools, so that their special features can be strengthened at the same time their essential linkages with the formal framework can be ensured. There will be more space for a series of inputs from the demand-side as the framework would provide discretion in adaptation of curricula and teaching-learning strategies to local and individual circumstances. Space would also be created for mixed-form arrangements, whereby face-to-face learning in classrooms could be combined with access to multimedia facilities or community- or work-based components of learning. In turn this would promote part-time variants for the school part of the process as well as a re-visiting of how educational spaces in "schools" could be used.

It is argued here that a re-examination of the experiences of traditionally non-formal education programmes is necessary in order to establish their contribution towards a wider systems framework for formal basic education. This agenda goes beyond investigations into the specific experiences and successes of individual programmes but attempts to come to grips with the potential of non-conventional approaches to education as regards improving access, quality, relevance, and cost-effectiveness of formal basic education across the system.

In pursuing such an agenda a distinction needs to be made between non-formal education as a separate type of provision, on the one hand, and as an approach to learning or its provision in a generic sense, on the other hand. The former would examine the merits of specific adaptations for categories of learners with common socio-economic circumstances. The latter is likely to be much more challenging as it would seek to establish whether there are certain modalities of management, school-community linkages, or the organisation and methodology of the teaching-learning process that could have benefits across the system and allow all schools discretion to adjust to the needs and circumstances of their clienteles. This in turn could identify an agenda for a degree of deformalisation of schooling, or, within our new systems perspective, a degree of "loosening up the straitjacket."

Within the context of a system’s agenda for promoting improvements in formal basic education, attention would have to go towards what I have called elsewhere "compensatory" and "alternative" NFE provisions³. Compensatory programmes intend to compensate young people for lack of access, eviction, or poor performance of the school system, while alternative programs aim to create an alternative to the mainstream provision, one that is meant to be more relevant and better suited to the basic learning needs of young people. I do not include in this scheme the many NFE provisions that follow or supplement primary education. The former two types are the ones that have for years been trying to survive on the margins of the education system and still suffer by and large from lack of formal recognition and support.

Recent literature on NFE provisions in terms of compensatory and alternative programmes confirms that the key principles that characterise this effort are flexibility and responsiveness to the needs of learners and their contexts⁴. Thus community schools and related programmes have adjusted their timetables, their facilities, the provision of staff and materials to what makes sense under the circumstances, and they focus their curriculum on what appears to be the most pressing learning needs of their clienteles. In the process they forge close links with the surrounding communities and achieved a degree of community participation. At the same time we learn that NFE provisions have predominantly taken off in disadvantaged rural communities (and sometime peri-urban communities) and that the instigators tend to be external NGOs interested in the contribution of education to poverty alleviation.

From a systemic perspective there are some questions which can be raised here:

• To what extent are the characteristics of flexibility and responsiveness mainly a response to efforts to provide formal education under conditions of poverty?

• To what extent have there been conscious efforts to implement adjustments in such way that they provide cost-effective alternatives towards promoting learning that is at least of equal standard to the level of the state schools?

• Have there been successful efforts to create learning situations, which address more effectively the needs of learners than tends to be the case in conventional schools?

• Has the responsiveness to demand produced learning outcomes that effectively assisted disadvantaged youngsters to progress in the education system or to enter the world of work?

• Has the involvement of communities evoked a type of ownership and influence that has distinct advantages for the learners as well as for the communities themselves?

• Is there an emergence of a methodology for sensitizing and preparing communities and ministries for assuming responsibilities for NFE programmes as part of a drive to expand and improve educational opportunities?

Although a fair bit of research into current seemingly successful programmes, such as community or village schools, has been ongoing, it seems still too early to provide conclusive answers to the above questions. However, some generalisable findings are emerging. For example, most community schools are clearly initiated in order to create additional school places in deprived areas for those children who for various reasons cannot attend formal schooling. As they mainly compensate for the inability of the state to expand access they tend to adopt features of conventional schools.

It appears that core adjustments made to the conditions of poverty have a potential value of improving quality and effectiveness, though not necessarily at lower costs. Such adjustments include, for example, the utilization of less qualified and untrained teachers (who are subsequently given induction courses), the reduction of the curriculum to core subjects or their condensation into a fast-track option, and the adherence to smaller class sizes. There is evidence that this combination, with the add-ons of induction training, provision of basic materials, and regular supervision can produce satisfactory results in terms of both sustained participation and learning achievements⁴.

However, there is also evidence of problematic issues. These include the extent of the adaptation of the curriculum to the needs of learners in terms of background, age, and gender; the extent of introducing alternative teaching/learning strategies; and the ensuring of effective community ownership, in terms of participation in management and in curriculum implementation. As regards efforts to adapt the curriculum and teaching/learning strategies the adjustments appear to take their cues more from the circumstances of learners than from their specific learning needs. Thus they tend to deal more with organisational arrangements than pedagogical content and styles. At the same time, NFE efforts in West Africa appear to demonstrate greater awareness of the need to address the very nature of the curriculum for basic education⁵. Gender issues have been accepted as a key concern, as higher female enrolment seems easier to achieve than an improvement in girls’ performance.

A particular vexing problem has been that NFE programmes tend to be introduced in poorer communities, with the result that the already disadvantaged end up contributing disproportionately to the cost of education. It is striking that the involvement of the donor tends to emphasize the provision of inputs that the state accepts as its normal responsibility but cannot provide. Thus the idea appears to be that community schools fill a void until the state can extend its accepted obligations. Where the state does get involved, as in Uganda, it effectively supports the emergence of an adapted form of the same conventional school system. Despite efforts at sensitisation, there is little indication as yet of attempts to promote a community perspective on the nature of basic education and its provision. This raises questions about the dynamics of community ownership and participation in a programme that appears to be compensatory and does not address the rules governing the provision of mainstream education themselves.

If we return to the earlier expressed concerns regarding the development of a systemic framework that would cater more adequately for the kind of premises as outlined, one would particularly look for innovative work in areas like the following:

• teacher recruitment and professional support services
• curriculum: content and methods, and classroom practices
• language in education
• school / teacher supervision
• development and utilization of resource materials

• institutional decision-making and organisational culture
• community ownership, management, and participation
• improved cost-effectiveness.

Innovations in NFE in these areas could be appraised for their possible introduction into the mainstream of a formal basic education system and thus produce a wider impact of NFE as an approach to education. However, in spite of the many experiences, sometimes over long periods, there appears as yet to be little clarity about what can be replicated. Provisional evidence points to some elements that have significant consequences for access or quality. These include: a location for learning close to the home; the offering of reduced or condensed versions of a curriculum; the inclusion of home languages and local knowledge; community control over schools and teachers; the recruitment of local teachers, even if untrained; regular supervision of staff; small classes. So far, however, none of these elements constitute new insights, and several are not peculiar to NFE programmes. The exceptions may be: the learning close to home, the reduced curriculum, and the recruitment of local teachers. In principle these three aspects do constitute an alternative provision, though they do not necessarily add up to a very different learning experience.

Within a systems perspective there are specific elements of NFE that deserve further scrutiny. Those that have special relevance in linking NFE to the mainstream are:

• curriculum and assessment
• accreditation of teachers
• supervision by the ministry of education
• access to state funding.

These elements would ensure that the NFE provision is covered by the systemic umbrella as outlined earlier. They would also determine formal recognition as well as the right of transfer to other parts of the education system. Not in the least they are the basis for parity and viability, and thus address the basic issue of equity. In this respect there is still an absence of actual evidence: to what extent these links exist, how effective they are in reality, and what obstacles would need to be overcome.

This paper makes a case for a more explicit systemic approach to formal basic education that allows for and promotes diversity in provisions for learning so as to cater for diverse circumstances and needs of children and their communities. It assumes that this is possible, provided there is greater clarity about what is essentially "formal" about the system and thus remains largely the responsibility of the state, and what spaces should be left for communities, however defined, and local authorities to develop their own visions about basic education and negotiate adjustments to mainstream provisions or push for modalities for learning that take cognizance of specific circumstances and needs.

As a general trend in education provisioning, the above approach can be considered necessary from an economic point of view (i.e. the financing and resourcing of basic education) as well as a social development point of view. That point of view is partly on the increased significance attached to the nature of demand for education - in line with children’s and people’s right to basic education as a foundation for lifelong learning -partly to the increasing significance in the context of globalisation of alternative pathways to learning associated with community traditions and resources.

The general agenda that the above approach entails can be seen foremost as a research and development one. It will inform further agendas related to advocacy and awareness as well as institutional reform and development. This R&D relates to the magnitude of the work to be done on desirable and effective learning outcomes in basic education. This would reach beyond the core skills of literacy and numeracy, moving into knowledge of the social and ecological environment, life skills and a variety of competencies associated with science and technology, and arts and culture. Further work would relate to forms of assessment that can effectively capture a wide variety of competencies and that are culturally sensitive. Probably the most critical work would be in the area of teaching and learning styles and in investigating the quality and effectiveness of different institutional and social arrangements for learning. It is in these fields that the implications of recognizing diversity of circumstances and needs would require the highest attention of academics, policy-makers, and practitioners combined.⁷

As regards NFE, some of the questions to be raised are fundamental. Given the very limited scope of NFE efforts at the level of basic education for children around the African continent, and given their often limited objectives by force of circumstances, can such provisions can be expected to serve as hotbeds of educational innovation whose influences can ripple across the entire system? Is it possible to expect major lessons from provisions that cater largely to the poor and disadvantaged and that are more likely to regard adaptation as a deficit approach? If more systematic work in basic education is undertaken to promote viable forms of flexibility and effective modes of responsiveness, should it not be undertaken in those sections of the mainstream where minimal resources are present and communities are in a better position to fully participate on their own terms?

Answers probably lie in between, and it is possible to argue that NFE provisions, especially the current crop of community school initiatives across the continent are important nurseries for certain types of innovations, and could do more if systematic attention were given to their actual potential. Yet other parts of the diversification agenda might well need to be pursued elsewhere, where suitable conditions exist and where they may be merged with methodologies for innovation that stem from different sources: such as distance education, open learning, adult education, and experiential learning in street and work situations. Moving towards a system for integrated diversity will probably require a coherent, integrated R&D agenda that cuts across different sub-systems and begins to synthesize from an African perspective the lessons to be learned and the directions in which to move.