Stand with us and support them
Recently I was at a seminar organised by the Literacy Working Group, based on the four calls for action outlined in Women’s Right to Literacy: Advocating women’s right to access learning literacy through international development. Five presenters demonstrated how literacy, the bedrock of learning, is not simply about acquiring a set of prescribed skills.
Literacy, they illustrated, is a complex, multi-faceted, problematic and situated concept, which also has to be seen in a cultural context. Literacy is a vital part of human development for self-actualisation, autonomy, democracy and fulfilment, as well as economic development.
We heard from (1.) Professor Anna Robinson-Pant – Director of the Centre for Applied Research in Education (CARE) at the University of East Anglia – about the rapid pace of change in rural Nepal as mobile phones, roads and the internet bring new possibilities for communication, new literacies and new languages. She outlined a mismatch between the aims of many adult literacy providers and the reasons that women want to learn literacy – particularly their desire to learn to read and write as steps towards greater equality in their communities and empowering their children, especially girls.
We listened intently to (2.) Dr Rafat Nabi’s work, as Senior Education Advisor, Swedish Committee for Afghanistan with women in Pakistan, many of whom did not realise they could or wanted to learn. With energetic support and motivation they have embraced the power literacy gave them to motivate and educate their families as well as to challenge the dominance of the men and in-laws in their lives. Rafat challenged donors, providers, academics and governments to invest in literacy.
An initiative in South Africa called Kha ri Gude (2008-15) was described by (3.) Charlotte Nussey – a 2nd year Doctoral Student at the Institute of Education, London. Charlotte questioned what we might mean by integrated approaches to literacy, gender and health. She suggested that even if literacy materials raise issues of gender and health, learners are unlikely to grasp the underlying concepts and issues, unless they are learned explicitly and in a context which enables them to begin to learn about their rights and understand health agendas more clearly.
(4.) Dr Priti Chopra – Senior Lecturer, University of Greenwhich – used the context of female foeticide and infanticide to explore the need for literacy, reported by Dai, traditional midwives in rural Bihar, India. Questions related to perceptions of the links between literacy and health as well as concepts of competence and knowledge. Could addressing the literacy, knowledge, desires and material realities of the Dai help to reduce infanticide? Should literacy learning be given such expectations? How much consultation happens with participants about the purposes and content of their learning? The complexity of situations and issues of rights and moral agency at all levels were explored.
Finally, (5.) Elaine Unterhalter – Professor of Education and International Development, at the Institute of Education, University of London and president of the British Association of International and Comparative Education (BAICE) – raised questions about the role of teachers, their skills and knowledge, their relationships with learners and the communities they serve. Teachers are ‘between’ cultures and social norms; they act between policy and practice. Elaine suggested that the Millennium Development Goals had not galvanised a holistic approach to education, but teachers could provide ways of filling the gaps between women, poverty and equality through learning. Those who are often invisible in the discourse around quality and teaching can be the ‘glue’ in the networking roles they play. Recognition, status and training are vital.
Through many stimulating discussions, we asked:
- Why is adult literacy largely ignored in international development when research, experience and insight suggests that literacy makes a huge difference to people’s lives?
- How can funders’ aspirations for simple, short-term ‘fixes’ with far-reaching impact, be resolved with the lived realities of women learning in rural areas, alongside their daily work and family responsibilities?
- How can we respond to complex and demanding adult lives, with multiple learning responses, supporting diversity of interests, aspirations, contexts and life stages?
- How can we make research accessible and translated to inform practice and provision?
Everyone agreed that providing literacy for women makes so much sense, what do you think?
When my young sons attended primary school in the Caribbean, the headteacher had a big poster in each classroom, “Reading is the key to success” and she worked tirelessly that her students would develop not only the tools of literacy, but also a love of reading. She was an enlightened woman who made a huge difference to many young lives in that small island. In some places, literacy is the key, not just to success, but to life itself. So much aid, relief and development would be made more effective, more efficient and more sustainable if literacy levels, especially in women, were made a priority.
Masochistic Educators?
Are adult educators temperamental masochists? The report from Jan Eldred suggests that a reason why illiterate women -and probably illiterate men- do not learn to read, write and calculate and then apply those skills to empowering themselves and improving their lives, is a mismatch between the aims of literacy workers and providers and the reasons why women -and men?- want to learn literacy. In other words, those who fund and those who implement adult literacy programmes have got it wrong and are blameworthy. Either their approach, or their materials, or their pedagogy, or their timing, or indeed all of these aspects are misconceived. Their well intentioned and very diverse efforts over a century or more to help unschooled or poorly schooled women and men gain and capitalise on their right to literacy have been misguided. All the resources that governments, aid donors and charities have been investing since the Soviet Union under Lenin’s wife, Nadia Krupskaya, launched its compulsory, decades long, programme in the 1920s, were inadequate, misapplied and insufficiently comprehensive. The would-be helpful literates were at fault, not the people whom they were trying to help.
Why the reluctance to look at the other side of the question? Does the adult learner have no responsibility to pursue her or his right? No responsibility to seize and hold on to any opportunity that offers itself? No responsibility to take full advantage of a volunteer’s willingness to donate the time and effort to help them use their right? No responsibility to show the interest and persevere in the commitment to master and apply the skills? The experiences of Tanzania in the 1970s, for example, or of highly literate Kerala in the 1990s, where large minorities of neoliterates did not use their skills much and gradually forgot them, question whether literacy is so universally needed or is such a desperately sought after right. In contrast, Alan Rogers and Brian Street have published a number of cases that underline the following discomfiting fact: when adults really want to take up the right to literacy, they do -and then apply it productively, whether or not they have participated in organised literacy classes.
Such determined self-reliance evokes the observation that such individuals are exceptional. The more ordinary non-literates, mostly poor, mostly burdened with a variety of family responsibilities, mostly tired from the effort simply to keep bodies and souls together, mostly uncertain of their abilities to learn, mostly in livelihoods that do not require literacy, indeed mostly unclear about how literacy will help them, need much support, both material and moral. Their uncertainty about pursuing their right requires counterbalancing through the determination of the literate to convince them of the importance and value of the right. In turn, this obliges the literate also to learn precisely how to focus on and appeal to the variegated interests of differing communities of the non-literate, so that the latter do persevere and succeed in mastering, applying and remembering the skills of literacy. It follows that, if there is failure, it lies with the educator, not with the learner.
Is this not verging on paternalism [maternalism?]. Or, on the contrary, is it protecting the victim from blame?
Thank you for this excellent and very informative blog article, Jan! I am immediately going to publish the link on the EBSN’s web site and on our FaceBook’s page. I particularly like your first question, “Why is adult literacy largely ignored in international development when research, experience and insight suggests that literacy makes a huge difference to people’s lives?” I couldn’t agree more! I hope EBSN will be able to get involved outside Europe in a not too distant future – although we do have a lot to do in our continent at the moment.
Thanks again and all the best in your endeavours!
and an issue I came away with strongly was the importance of those working in different networks and ngos, of the kind who attended the Women’s Literacy event, to liaise with each other, exchange info including on similar workshops they are holding eg Balid (see website http://www.balid.org.uk/) has a workshop at the London Institute of Education on Thurs 14th feb at 6pm on literacy and Development by Marilyn Martin-Jones and Estavao Cabral at which many of these issues will be discussed further in relation to interesting data on Timor Leste. All welcome and we can continue and further develop the Literacy debate. At the same time, I look forward to hearing from colleagues in the other organisations about their activities, workshops, publications etc.
Interesting comments coming through. I agree with much of what John Oxenham says though think is reference to masochism detracts from the points he is making. When adults need literacy in their lives and it is available and appropriate for what they need, they attend. There are comments from adults in many parts of the world wondering why they should given time to literacy when they have managed well for many years without it, often helpd by friends and family. Having said that,I agree that in many circumanstances, as Jill says literacy can be the key to success, but the programmes have to be relevant and the facilitators have to be well trained and well supported.
Thank you to all those who are responding to our blog – and engaging with the big issues with which we are all grappling. I particularly welcome John Oxenham’s response; it gives us an opportunity to clarify some of our advocacy. All of John’s comments have some validity; most of them relate to well researched barriers to adult learning. These have been documented for many years and relate to psychological (learning’s not for me); geographical (location/access); programming (relevance, timing, duration) and contextual (culture, attitude, social) barriers. They continue to be highly relevant.
The mismatch between the aims of literacy workers and learners is, in many instances, an accurate assessment. Training and development needed to build capacity amongst many volunteers and low-paid workers, is often supported by short-term funding and with inadequate materials and resources, resulting in approaches to teaching which are didactic and often based on a ‘reader’ model. Many learners participate in programmes which are not linked to their individual situations, aims and aspirations. This is not the fault of the tutors. Such complexity takes training, conceptualisation, resources and investment. Some countries have encouraged and developed a wide range of approaches but investment is not universal enough – Charlotte Nussey’s research in South Africa, demonstrating investment in literacy in a national, long-term way, is a current, notable exception. We know, from research and investment around the globe, that designing, developing and successfully providing literacy learning – in school or post-school – is a massive challenge. If this was not so, why has the UK invested unprecedented amounts in adult literacy, since 2001, along with such highly industrialised nations as Germany and Switzerland?
Certainly, individuals have responsibilities and we must not disregard the many people who do seek out and find ways to learn. But many do not. We could say the same about all those people in industrialised countries who are ‘forced’ to take up learning if they want state benefit or fulfil a probation order. The opportunities are there but not taken up. Not everyone sees that learning is for them; the barriers are well recorded. These multiply for many women in developing countries including negative or no initial schooling; a lack of relevant, well-timed opportunities and familial and work responsibilities. The position of women in many families and societies provides strong messages that learning is not for them. But because many people recognise the transforming power of learning throughout life, they want others to have such experiences. The responsibilities lie with policy makers, programme designers and providers to address barriers and increase participation in order to reap the individual and collective rewards.
John’s point about literacy skills not being used, relates to individual context and situation. All forms of traders, tailors, carpenters, farmers, record orders, measurements and accounting; these demand relevant literacies. Millions of people in Asia and Africa use mobile phones; relevant literacies are required to optimise their use and effectiveness. Skills development is increasing in developing countries; the specific, vocational numeracy and literacy skills must also be developed. As the drive to get children, and girls particularly, into primary school increases, the impact of the investment cannot be realised if their mothers and carers are unable to understand the demands of homework and the support required for their off-spring to stay in school. Family learning can offer a complementary opportunity.
Literacy must be offered in diverse, contextual, relevant and sensitive ways so that the partnership between providers and participants in learning opportunities benefits as many as possible.
John is right; poverty and the daily grind of living can demand everything. We might have described the same conditions for many in Victorian England. Relevant, aspirational learning opportunities, gradually meant that, in 19 century England, people could begin to change their own and others’ lives. Opening up lifelong learning is not paternalistic – or maternalistic – but a hard-fought-for right for the dignity of every individual, their families and communities. Adult educators are not masochists but passionate believers in empowerment and the rights of every individual, regardless of nationality, status and qualification. Those of us who have benefitted from those rights campaign for the individual and common good so that more can have a slice of participation, not only in learning but in having their voices heard in shaping their communities and contributing to social and economic development across the globe.
Would I be perverse to rephrase the argument thus, in the form of an assertion by a non-literate person to an educator or even a politician:
“I have a right to adequate skills in reading, writing and written calculations. That right obliges you, the educator, to make the value of my right so obvious to me and to make the work for it so sensitively relevant to my interests and circumstances, that I am totally moved to make and persevere in the effort needed to succeed in learning those skills. If you fail in either of these respects, I have the right to withdraw from learning and to hold you responsible for my withdrawal. I am not obliged to make the most of the opportunity you offer me.”??
The cases documented by Alan Rogers and Brian Street of men and women who master the skills on their own with no specially focused help in terms of curriculum, pedagogy or learning materials accord with the now ancient history of the farmers of Dezful, Iran, who were taking part in the UNESCO Work Oriented Adult Literacy Programme way back in the early 1970s. The farmers were following a curriculum derived from their particular crop -cotton, I think it was- and were joined by three municipal employees, who bicycled in the three or so miles from Dezful town after work. Those three proved the most regular and persevering of the learning group and achieved the best certificates of literacy, even though the curriculum was not in the least relevant to their daily functions. They so intrigued a UNESCO staff member, that she sought them out for an interview; and discovered that their certificates now entitled them to an immediate raise in salary. The inference seems to be that what matters is not curriculum or pedagogy or materials, but motivation.
Would it be a step too far to infer that, if the motivation for literacy has to be induced, a literacy programme faces a Sisyphean task?
On the puzzle why financiers seem to ignore the evidence on what should be seen as the almost indispensable benefits of literacy and numeracy, an explanatory factor may be the observations of casual empiricism. When senior officials and politicians visit literacy classes without prior warning, they often find the learning groups much smaller than the attendance registers suggest and the enrolled learners drifting in and out with little regard for time. The observers infer that the classes are of little importance to their enrolees and likely not worth much public money. They probably do not look at the later detailed evaluative field studies that show that such patterns do not predict the eventual pretty respectable rates of completion, attainment and application.
Response by Brian Street 24 Jan 2013
So, let’s start with where I agree with John. He concludes: ‘this obliges the literate also to learn precisely how to focus on and appeal to the variegated interests of differing communities of the non-literate, so that the latter do persevere and succeed in mastering, applying and remembering the skills of literacy’. Yes, that is what is involved in the programmes he cites that Alan Rogers and I are involved with; the potential teachers and trainers who we work with often have general views on the ‘illiterate’ that don’t correspond to the complex realities on the ground. So we help them develop an ethnographic perspective for looking at local practices and working out, with local people themselves, which literacies could be helpful for which purposes. This certainly does not ‘verge on paternalism/ maternalism’, as John calls it – it is collaborative work of the kind, I believe, that Jan Eldred and her colleagues were proposing in the ‘Women’s Right to Literacy’ programme. It is right to say, as John sumamrises the LWG approach, that one reason ‘why illiterate women -and probably illiterate men- do not learn to read, write and calculate and then apply those skills to empowering themselves and improving their lives, is a mismatch between the aims of literacy workers and providers and the reasons why women -and men?- want to learn literacy’. This is neither to make the providers ‘blameworthy’ nor to patronise the so-called ‘illiterate’; both parties are learning and both can participate in more open ended, creative programme of the kind being advocated. So don’t take the negative view John and I would appeal to readers of his blog not to be put off by his comments – there is much positive work going on ‘both sides’ as it were. Let’s not talk about ‘victims’ and ‘blame’, as John concludes, or deploy his other negative terms ‘paternalism/ maternalism’; ‘wrong and blameworthy’; ‘inadequate, misapplied’ etc etc. Let’s instead use the positive terms proposed by the speakers at the LWG seminar; as Rafat Nabi, said, for instance, ‘With energetic support and motivation they [women in Pakistan] have embraced the power literacy gave them to motivate and educate their families as well as to challenge the dominance of the men and in-laws in their lives’. Or the response by Eliane Unterhalter: ‘Those who are often invisible in the discourse around quality and teaching can be the ‘glue’ in the networking roles they play. Recognition, status and training are vital’. And as Jan Eldred says in one of her points for future action: ‘How can we respond to complex and demanding adult lives, with multiple learning responses, supporting diversity of interests, aspirations, contexts and life stages?’ These are the questions we should be asking and the positive direction we could be taking – let’s not be distracted by John’s negatives!
Bravo, Brian! And among the positive efforts to help non-literate folk persevere in mastering the skills they want are two that encourage them to take responsibility for each other’s attendance and efforts. In one, learners who live near each other or know each other well undertake either to accompany each other to class and work together on ‘homework’ or at least to call on each other, if one fails to show up for a class. In the other, an “attendance committee” makes it its business to discover the reasons for absences, help mitigate them and help the absentees make up on the missed classes. In Lower Egypt,one such committee capitalised on a local custom of hospitality to fashion a deterrent for less than weighty excuses: they called as a group on the absentee, who felt obliged to entertain them all to tea.