Educating Marginalized Communities in East and Southeast Asia

State, civil society and NGO partnerships

Khun Eng Kuah, Jason Eng Thye Tan

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2016
• ISBN:
  9781317203018
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Education
• Subtopic: Inclusive Education

Despite the enshrinement by the United Nations in 1948 of education as a universal human right, and despite the ideals espoused in the Education for All declaration in Dakar in 1990, it is patently clear that these ideals remain far from realized for a substantial portion of humankind. Especially at risk are vulnerable segments of society such as women, migrants, refugees, rural populations, ethnic minorities, and the financially disadvantaged. This book centres on efforts to provide education to these marginalized populations in the East and Southeast Asian region. Of particular interest are questions of financing and control. As various governments have struggled to manage the escalating costs of building schools, training teachers and educating students, the topic of public private partnerships in educational provision has assumed growing importance. The seven chapters presented here highlight a variety of partnerships among state, civil society and non-government organisations (NGOs).

1
Educating marginalized communities in East and Southeast Asia

State, civil society and NGO partnerships

Jason Eng Thye Tan and Khun Eng Kuah

The nature of ‘public’ and ‘private’ in education

It is appropriate to start the book with prefatory remarks about the nature of the terms “public” and “private” in education. There is a growing recognition in the international literature that the two terms are far from being binary in nature (see for instance, Ball, 2007; Power and Taylor, 2013; Robertson, Mundy, Verger and Menashy, 2012). If one considers the dimensions of funding, provision and regulation in education, it is apparent that these two terms are becoming increasingly blurred. Even though education is often conceived of as being a public good worthy of state regulation, funding and provision, more often than not, what we see is a variety of arrangements such as state funding of educational institutions run by non-governmental organizations or civil society. Along with the funding often comes regulation in one form or other, which bears testament to the importance with which many national governments view education in terms of its wider societal roles such as social cohesion. Often, private provision of education fills in gaps in state provision.

Many academics have been critical of the ways in which private providers have assumed an increasing role in educational provision and funding. Ball (2012, p. 138) talks of:

new policy assemblages with a diverse range of old and new participants existing in a new kind of policy space somewhere between multilateral agencies, national governments and international business, in and beyond the traditional sites and circulations of policymaking.

He cautions that the new mix of providers and arrangements have serious implications beyond the classroom and introduce ‘new voices within policy conversations and new conduits through which policy discourses enter policy thinking’ (p. 138). There is a fundamental reconfiguration of relationships and boundaries between the state, economy and civil society. Consequently, states are finding changes in their capacity to shape and steer education systems. In a similar vein, Robertson, Mundy, Verger and Menashy (2012), while acknowledging potential benefits of public-private partnerships such as helping the poor and offering new sources of funding, suggest that such partnerships may have negative effects on equity, erode citizens’ voices and detract from education’s status as a public good and a human right.

State and NGO in education provision

In most Asian countries, the State has been a key player in the provision of education. This is particularly so after the empire states were dismantled following the end of World War II. The formation of new nation-states on the one hand and the socialist-communist states on the other hand has meant that education was seen as an important instrument in nation-building and economic development by the national government of these Asian states. The building of schools and the implementation of a national education system was instrumental in raising the literacy standard of these nations, although some Asian nations have fared better than others. In these nations, free or nominally-charged local education is provided to school-going aged children for a duration of 10 or more years. In some of the less developed Asian nations such as in India and Bangladesh, children routinely dropped out of school after a few years of education because of poverty and engaged in child labour. In general, East Asian and Southeast Asian countries have a higher literacy rate with many countries having 90 per cent literacy rate compared to those in South Asia that hover around 50–60 per cent (http://unstats.un.org/unsd/demographic/products/Worldswomen/wwEduc2010.htm, accessed 16/3/2015).

The provision of national education in these countries focuses on the mainstream population. As such, children from an ethnic minority background, children of various disabilities and migrant children often have not been served by the mainstream education system. Likewise, where there is a rural-urban divide, urban children are often better educated than the rural ones. This is also the case for girls in some of these Asian countries where either cultural dictates, the state or both have neglected the girl’s education.

Where the state fails, NGOs have stepped in and have been playing a significant role in the provision of education in developing countries, including in many parts of Asia. In Asian countries where there is an emerging civil society, there is a corresponding increase in the number and roles of NGOs that have catered to various spheres of development. Education is one sphere. For the NGOs, there are target groups with which they work to elevate literacy. Ethnic minority, migrant children and girls are often their target, so are those with physical and mental disabilities and those from a poor rural background. In recent years, among the NGOs, there are some who choose to work closely with the state to cater to other groups of children.

In the early years the NGOs’ mission was likely to be simply to provide literacy to deprived children. More recently, there has been a push to link education, in particular the local educational agency, with capacity development (Spillane and Thompson, 1997). Education provision thus is no longer seen as an end to literacy, but more significantly to enable the recipients to become useful citizens (Eades, 1997). In this push, there is recognition that, apart from financial resources needed for educational purposes, rich and poor districts performed differently in developing human and social capital that is necessary for development of social equity (Spillane and Thompson, 1997, pp. 199–200). Likewise, education is seen as developing human capital and is an important source of social capital (Helliwell and Putnam, 2007).

NGOs have adopted and are in the forefront of promoting educational provision that aims at capacity development in order to maximize the resources that they have. In these Asian states, both local and foreign NGOs have taken root and are promoting capacity building education for those at the margins. In some cases, girls were taught skills such as crafts as well as business organizational skills that will enable them to run small co-operatives and create an income-generating environment. In many other cases, NGOs run educational facilities to facilitate children from various backgrounds in the pursuit of education. NGOs have thus become important players (Saggiomo, 2011).

Education and social justice

This book addresses the issue of state, civil society and NGO partnerships in the provision of education in a variety of East Asian nations. In particular, the focus is on the role of these partnerships in social justice, namely, in serving disadvantaged populations. These populations include refugees, recent migrants, individuals with sensory or intellectual disabilities, females, ethnic minorities or the poor. In the case studies in this volume, it is evident that these partnerships are valuable as a means of bridging gaps, often as a result of state inability or unwillingness to play a dominant role in educational provision. The element of social justice (Power and Taylor, 2013) thus enters the equation as a powerful component of education. It could be argued that private providers may not be as mindful of the wider societal goals of education and may be primarily driven by profit motives. Ultimately, debates about private-public partnerships cannot stray from arguments about who should be primarily responsible for the provision, regulation and funding of education. Criticisms are often directed at attempts by the state to abdicate its responsibilities in favour of greater private-sector involvement. At the same time, Power and Taylor (2013) claim that it is over-simplistic to believe that the rise of the private sphere in education is necessarily to the detriment of social justice. In fact, it is precisely the efforts of NGOs and civil society that enable social justice to be realized. These efforts are especially crucial in cases where governments are unwilling, or simply lack the money or interest, to fund and run schools. Of particular note is the reality that in this age of mass education, the world is still far from realizing the dream of universal schooling. This book thus focuses on how the various partnerships between governments, NGOs and civil society groups may be of great importance to traditionally marginalized groups in societies, even wealthier ones such as Singapore and Japan.

Much of the confusion in the public-private debate revolves around the failure to distinguish between private for-profit providers and private not-for-profit operators. There is a long international history of both the former and the latter providing, funding and even regulating education. It is salient to point out that in many countries, mass schooling efforts only took off in the second half of the twentieth century. Non-profit secular and sectarian groups have long been providing schooling for economically advantaged as well as economically disadvantaged children. This can be seen for instance in the work of missionary groups such as the La Salle Brothers. This work expanded in geographical coverage along with the spread of European colonialism in much of South America, Asia and Africa. In more recent times various international charities and NGOs, whether religious or non-religious, have played an instrumental role in providing schooling in many less-developed and conflict-ridden countries.

Ball (2007) highlights the rise of state partnerships with a variety of public and private agencies in the provision of schooling in Britain. Among the dangers he mentions is the hijacking of the purposes of public schooling by agencies driven by differing motives, rationales and values, even though all parties take pains to stress the synergetic and benign nature of partnerships. He recognizes, however, the way in which the state ‘recognises the value of mutual learning and negotiated coordination to enhance efficiency and develop competitive capacity’ (Ball, 2007: 120). The state’s role in these partnerships appears to be moving towards ‘commissioning and monitoring rather than delivery’ (Ball, 2007: 120). Another feature of these partnerships is the reworking of policy narratives in which terms such as competition, entrepreneurialism and enterprise, more commonly associated with the business world, occupy centre stage in state education, thus modifying the political relations of education. New actors are legitimated while new key ideas and new logics come in play. At the same time, new alliances are formed between the state and the various corporations engaged in philanthropic efforts to set up schools.

Dale (1997) posits that there is an increasing trend of states allowing greater diversity in the provision of education, while retaining ultimate control over the funding and regulation, thus remaining firmly in the driver’s seat. He mentions three main institutions of social coordination: the state, the market and the community. The market and the community have both expanded and formalized their scope of involvement in education provision while direct state involvement has contracted. In terms of funding, the state may provide funding in the form of scholarships, vouchers, grants, loans, investments or subsidies to schools run by non-state actors. Very often, these moves are driven by ideological considerations of increasing funding and delivery efficiency. When it comes to regulation, states have incorporated such measures as accountability-driven performance measures and competition among various schools in order to retain their ultimate control over school providers. Increasing the number of non-state providers raises fundamental issues of whom schooling is supposed to serve and who is accountable for problems of provision. In addition, debates continue to swirl over whether the democratic and equity-driven purposes of schooling are best served within a fragmented system of education provision.

In summary, there are widely diverging views on the value of state-civil society-NGO partnerships. On the one hand, some believe that these partnerships increase quality, diversity and accountability while plugging gaps left by the inadequacies of public services. On the other hand, some scholars believe in the ability of state neutrality to administer comprehensive schooling to all populations, and are sceptical of any hint of the profit motive in schooling provision. They have also raised questions about fundamental changes in policy discourse relating to the purposes of schooling, and about the nature of state-civil society-NGO partnerships. This book thus aims to add further to the international discussion on these partnerships by exploring their existence in the East and Southeast Asian setting across a variety of countries that differ not only culturally, but also politically and economically. It is hoped that readers will be better able to find answers to some of the key questions that continue to surface with regard to the motivations for these partnerships and their mechanisms, as well as their effects.

Outline of book

Kuah’s chapter is centred on how the PRC state has encouraged philanthropic efforts by the Chinese diaspora in the form of Project Hope in rural areas. This project involves the building of schools and the provision of financial aid to students. The chapter discusses state-sponsored NGO partnerships with private corporations. Kuah states these efforts raise questions about a new model of cross-border philanthropy amid the spectre of growing economic and educational inequalities in the PRC.

Another chapter that highlights the needs of economically disadvantaged students is that of Latief and Amirrachman. This time, the role played by Muslim charitable organizations in reaching out to low-income teenagers and school leavers is the focus. These organizations use funds collected from tithes pledged by wealthy individuals in order to provide schools and teacher training.

Karen refugees housed in camps in Thailand are the focus of Oh’s chapter. In her chapter, a coalition of civil society groups and NGOs work together to develop textbooks and curricula, provide teacher training as well as building supplies. Questions of differential power are raised as these organizations negotiate their partnerships.

International NGOs work together with the Lao state to provide boarding schools for ethnic minority female students in Laos. This is yet another example of cross-border educational development assistance. The form the assistance takes includes financial aid, training of teachers, improving pedagogy and the improvement of management. This chapter by Faming highlights issues not only about the nature of partnerships, but importantly about issues related to gender and cultural identity.

The chapter by Okano covers partnerships in a wealthy East Asian nation, Japan. This chapter adds an interesting dimension in the form of relationships between state provision in mainstream schools and out-of-school extra lessons provided by NGOs for new migrants. It also makes clear the existence of disparities in this wealthy nation in the case of marginalized minorities.

Poon, Tham-Toh and Lee’s chapter highlights the role played by NGOs in another wealthy East Asian nation, Singapore. The Singapore state has traditionally played a hands-off role in the provision of education for individuals with sensory and intellectual disabilities. A variety of NGOs have stepped in to fill the gap, and continue to play a dominant role even as the state has moved in the last decade in the direction of a more inclusive education in mainstream schools.

In the final chapter, Reyes highlights how philanthropic efforts of a Singapore NGO in conjunction with Filipino universities have filled the gap in the Filipino state’s inability to provide adequately for economically disadvantaged students’ schooling. It offers a case study of cross-border educational development assistance. The chapter also raises questions of the limits of educational borrowing, in this case, a less developed country borrowing ideas in educational leadership and pedagogics from a country that has been acclaimed internationally as an educational success story.

In summary, the chapters in this book raise questions about appropriate state involvement in educational provision and financing, especially with regard to marginalized populations such as women, new migrants, special education students, refugees and ethnic minorities. As state educational policies are never value-neutral, but instead reflect state priorities and values, the case studies in this book force us to examine our own priorities and values. To what extent are these marginalized groups worthy of state educational funding, instead of having to rely largely or sometimes wholly on NGOs and philanthropic foundations? Are these groups worthy of equal respect by governments and the wider public? Even as states grapple with perennial dilemmas such as allocating limited or scarce financial and material resources, the wider issues of equity and social justice cannot be ignored.

References

Ball, S. (2007). Education plc: Understanding private sector participation in public sector education. Abingdon: Ashgate.

Ball, S. (2012). Global education Inc: New policy networks and the neo-liberal imaginary. Abingdon: Routledge.

Dale, R. (1997). The state and the governance of education. In A. H. Halsey, H. Lauder, P. Brown & A. S. Wells (Eds.), Education: Culture, economy, society (pp. 273–282). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Eades, D. (1997). Capacity-building: An approach to people-centred development. Oxford: Oxfam (UK and Ireland).

Helliw...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Title
• Copyright
• Contents
• Preface
• Contributors’ biodata
• 1 Educating marginalized communities in East and Southeast Asia: state, civil society and NGO partnerships
• 2 Chinese state and educational philanthropy: hope school project in rural China
• 3 Islamic philanthropy and the rights to education: modalities of education provision for underprivileged groups in Indonesia
• 4 Working towards partnership in education: civil society and NGOs in refugee camps in Thailand
• 5 Learn to be modern: education for ethnic minority female students in Laos
• 6 Education of new migrants and the civil society in Japan: non-governmental organizations and ethnic schools
• 7 Educational provision for children with disabilities in Singapore
• 8 International NGO collaboration in addressing challenges in education: a case study of the Singapore and Philippine partnership
• Index