Tag Archives: Targets

Reflection on Bonal

Bonal is a more recent and more practical paper than those previous in Case File 2.  He sets out to challenge the assumption that education will combat poverty by demonstrating the limitations of poor people in acquiring ‘useful’ education – of a level and quality sufficient to give them earning power above poverty levels.

The elasticity of required level and quality – rising as the average level rises – is shown as a major hindrance.  It also shows the way the already powerful sustain their power by changing the rules to maintain their advantage – a way to sustain the poverty trap despite increasing education.  Factors other than education – political social and economic – also need to be in place to achieve social mobility.

Targeting strategies generally had only a local and temporary effect.

The overall conclusion is that policies have been simplistic, non-interactive and therefore ineffective.  The concept of educability sounds horribly eugenic but realistically ‘places the emphasis on ‘precisely those factors associated with poverty that prevent the poor from taking advantage of educational opportunities.’

Quite a useful paper in understanding why policy has failed though not coming up with much in terms of alternative strategy approaches.

Reflections on Wise

Wise talks about the imposition of legislation on schools.  He features two problems:

  • The tendency of (western) schools to chase targets to the exclusion of other objectives of education – the teach to test or teach to OfSTED syndrome
  • The problem of disconnection of means and ends where means are specified without process to achieve the desired ends or ends are specified without obvious means to achieve them.  He calls this hyperrationalisation

The first is in a way the opposite of the problem addressed by Jansen – who complained that host governments do not chase targets.  The second is more in line with Government Aid reality – that ends are specified for which the means or process do not exist.

Reflections on Barrett and Jansen – studying theory or practice?

The papers by Barrett and Jansen came from different directions with a huge gulf in their sense of pragmatism.

Barrett is research for its own sake.  Introspective, indulgent, semantic – indeed anything but practical.  When one eventually gleans some meaning out of the flowery language, there is some sense in the analysis of personality type among teachers and how it governs their teaching behaviour – but it doesn’t take us anywhere.  There is a broad conclusion that, for progress to be likely, it has to build on teachers’ experience and their sense of their role but I think we might have guessed that!

Jansen by comparison is ruthlessly practical.  He demolishes the development education target setting process from conceptual, methodological and organisational points of view and concludes that the process is more to do with meeting the political needs of donor and donee than any expectation of targets being met.  The only disappointment is that he does not offer advice on a better path, only concludes that target setting does drive some beneficial action.

My own preference would be to talk about reference data rather than targets and about “straw-men”* rather than firm propositions.  Individual situations can then be mapped against the reference and a framework for action devised that can replace all or part of the straw-man.  That would achieve the same progress in a more meaningful process with more likelihood of local buy-in.

* A “straw-man” proposal is US parlance for a model proposal that is intentionally simplistic and designed to be changed and improved but triggers focused discussion more effectively than a blank sheet of paper.