Critical Studies in EducationVol. 52, No. 3, October 2011, 219–233

Pushing the child centred approach in Myanmar: the role of crossnational policy networks and the effects in the classroom

Marie Lall∗

Institute of Education, University of London, London, UK

(Received 12 December 2010; final version received 18 May 2011)

In Myanmar schools, rote learning is the norm. International aid and education organ-isations based in the country have been trying to promote the child centred approach(CCA) as a much more progressive form of teaching and learning. The CCA is beingrolled out principally through monastic school networks aided by international andnational Non-Government Organisations and commercial teacher training providersand consultants. The interaction between international non-government organisationsand non-government organisations, international funding and local monastic schoolshas created an interesting international and cross-national interagency network. Thearticle is based on original fieldwork research in Myanmar with classroom observa-tions in 11 non-state-sector schools, interviews with 66 teachers and 19 teacher trainers.Focus groups were also held with 58 parents or grandparents across four schools. Theroll out of CCA has led to a number of different local reactions. Whilst many will admitthat CCA is a ‘better’ approach to teaching and learning, the principal issue identifiedby teachers, head monks and parents is the fact that this western approach underminestraditional hierarchical structures of respect for teachers and elders, leading to a cultureclash at home and in the classroom.

Keywords: classrooms/school-based research; comparative and international educa-tion; educational policy; globalisation and internationalisation; teachers’ work andidentities

Introduction

Decades of underinvestment and developmental stagnation in Myanmar have led to amarked decline in the state education sector. Although, for most citizens, school accessis today less of a problem than in previous decades,1 retention rates remain low. Largeclass sizes of between 60–100 students per class have entrenched rote learning as a sys-tem. The Myanmar education system encompasses state, private and monastic schools.Monastic schools have traditionally catered to the poorer sections of society. Their teach-ers are less qualified than those working in the state schools. Most monastic schools tryto follow the national curriculum but hardly have any resources such as books or evenenough tables, chairs and blackboards. More recently private education facilities havesprung up in the urban centres, catering mainly to the middle classes (Lall, 2009). Whilststate sector schools require teachers to have a higher education and a teaching qualifica-tion, many teachers will have only finished secondary education themselves and many are

*Email: m.lall@ioe.ac.uk

ISSN 1750-8487 print/ISSN 1750-8495 online© 2011 Taylor & FrancisDOI: 10.1080/17508487.2011.604072http://www.tandfonline.com

220 M. Lall

fairly young.2 Even those who have a university degree (often through poorly regardeddistance learning courses) have rarely had any pre-service training. The teachers who doaccess teacher training colleges are few and are always recruited by the state educationsystem. According to the Ministry of Education, approximately 57% of primary teach-ers, 58% middle school teachers and 9% high school teachers have never attended teachertraining (Lwin, 2000). Myanmar is divided into seven regions dominated by Bamars, theethnic majority, and seven states dominated by ethnic minority groups, located principallyin the border regions. They have further problems, as Burmese is the only officially recog-nised language for instruction in schools. Local ethnic civil society groups have had toset up complimentary or parallel systems in order to teach children their mother tongueto supplement poor official education facilities. This has created friction with the Ministryof Education. The remoteness of many border areas means that it is virtually impossi-ble to secure state trained teachers for these schools. Overall, education quality variestremendously across both the state and the monastic schools.

In this context, over the past decade, a variety of non-state education providers andeducation training networks have emerged, in both the private for-profit and the not-for-profit sector (often led by civil society organisations or non-government organisations[NGOs]), offering alternative education provision to a variety of different clienteles (Lall,2009). Aside from the private schools, which cater to the urban middle classes, a numberof key monastic schools are now involved in an education network where internationalnon-government organisations (INGOs) and NGOs are pushing particular education poli-cies with regard to teaching and teacher training. This is particularly the case with regardto pushing schools to embrace the child centred approach (CCA, see below) by offeringmaterial and pedagogical assistance to schools with the aim of promoting an uncriticalabsorption of CCA. This creates a flow of a largely western idea to Myanmar classrooms.

Given that in Myanmar schools rote learning is the norm, international aid and educa-tion organisations see CCA as a much more progressive form of teaching and learning.Therefore it is promoted as a panacea to Myanmar’s many education challenges. TheCCA arrived in Myanmar through INGOs such as UNICEF and the Japan InternationalCooperation Agency (JICA) in the late-1990s/early-2000s. Although CCA is government-endorsed and UNICEF and JICA started to train teachers in the state sector, it is hardlyapplied in state schools. However, today, CCA has been embraced by national and localNGOs and is being rolled out through monastic school networks aided by internationalNGOs with international aid money, which often also benefits commercial teacher trainingproviders and consultants who charge high fees for their training packages. The net effectof the interplay of the aid money, the international education policy and the local networkhas resulted in a ‘policy flow’ with little attention paid to local teacher and parent voices.This article aims to air some of the views of those most affected by the roll-out of CCA.

The article is based on fieldwork conducted over 18 days in Myanmar in June 2010in 10 monastic schools in Yangon division,3 Mandalay division and Ayeyarwady divi-sion, covering both rural and urban areas. The focus was on primary (years 1–3) andupper primary school (years 4–5) education, but a number of the monastic schools vis-ited had middle school sections (years 6–9) and two had high school sections as well(years 10–11).4 More detailed research was conducted in four schools which were nodalpoints in the local monastic networks. The schools selected had a close relationship witha local NGO, which is funded by the British Council, and are well networked amongsteach other. They also have access to training, funding and alternative viewpoints. Assuch they are at the more progressive end of monastic schools and have developed fur-ther than many other schools, especially because of their training access. Despite this

Critical Studies in Education 221

Table 1. Summary of fieldwork.

Yangon and surroundings Mandalay Irrawaddy division Total

Number of schools 2 4 4 10Number of teachers 19 37 12 68+4 principalsNumber of trainers 10 9 – 19Number of parents 37 13 16 66

there were great differences between the schools, not only because of their size, but alsoin terms of how long they had been receiving help. The results reflect the fact that thesample was focused on such schools as opposed to a random sample. The results alsoare limited by the fact that only 10 schools were visited in only 3 areas. They do, how-ever, provide an insight into how CCA has been received in Myanmar monastic schoolswhich have been involved with (I)NGOs who are spearheading the spread on this teachingmethodology.

Semi-structured focus groups of 45 minutes to 1 hour were held with 68 teachers insmall groups of between 6 and 10. Semi-structured focus groups were also held with 66parents or grandparents across four schools5 (see Table 1). The participants were gener-ally selected by the head monk, but mostly comprised those teachers who had had someform of CCA training. Parents were invited by the school and there was no selection.Individual interviews were held with all head monks and at least one person from eachtraining provider mentioned in this article. Three semi-structured focus groups were alsoheld with 19 teachers who had been trained as teacher trainers in two monastic setups inYangon and Mandalay. The participants were all given a short summary of the researchproject in Burmese and asked for their written consent before any questions were asked.Since none of the participants spoke English, the questions and answers were facilitatedby a translator who was with the project throughout. Random classroom observations wereheld in most schools.

This article will discuss first the nature of the international and national NGO networkand these organisations’ role in exporting CCA, before discussing the local reaction acrossa number of key Myanmar monastic schools, which are at the centre of monastic educationnetworks. The article seeks to problematise the fact that ‘good’ education practice in a‘western’ sense, can improve teaching practice in Myanmar, but concurrently creates ahost of new issues and problems as unintended consequences.

Background: state and monastic education in Myanmar

At independence in 1948, Burma had the highest literacy rate in its own language across theformer British Empire. This was not only due to the Burmese state schools, but also largelythe monastic schools, which had always played a major role in educating the poorer sectionsof society (indeed they continue to do so) (Lorch, 2007). Today, Myanmar still retains avery high official literacy rate, with 89.9% of adults and 94.5% of youth considered literate(UNESCO, 2005). These statistics, although from a UN agency, are difficult to verify;anecdotal evidence in urban areas shows that most people on public transport or kerbsidesin Burma are reading. However, such high literacy rates are unlikely to be a true reflectionof the reality in rural areas.

The history of monastic education dates back over 1000 years to the Bagan era andwas the main education system during the rule of the Burmese kings. The introduction of

222 M. Lall

a more modern British system in the colonial era led to a decline of the monastic systemas monasteries no longer catered to the needs of the new era. After independence, monas-tic schools were revived and later outlawed in 1962 during the socialist period, when allschools were nationalised. The monastic schools were only allowed to return to teachingother than their own novices in 1993, as the state system could not reach across the wholecountry. Monastic schools started to fill the gaps for the poorer sections of society andhelped maintain high literacy rates. The schools were overseen first by the Ministry forSocial Welfare, later by the Ministry of Education and after 1988 the responsibility movedto the Ministry of Religious Affairs. In the early 1990s, new monastic schools were encour-aged to open and many allowed to register, so as to gain a certain legal status. This was ashort window in time which allowed some of the biggest monastic networks to establishthemselves. Today there are renewed difficulties in registering as an independent monasticschool outside of an established network.

At the same time, decades of underinvestment and civil strife have resulted in the slowand steady decay of the state education system across the country. Despite the fact thatduring the socialist era school buildings continued to be built both in the cities and inthe villages, teacher education and pay deteriorated markedly. During the State Law andOrder Restoration Council period, all higher education institutions were closed for years ata time. After the student protest of 1988, all universities were closed for two years. Anotherseries of student strikes in 1996 and 1998 resulted in a further three years of closure. InYangon, between 1988 and 2000 the universities were closed for 10 out of 12 years. Afterthe re-opening of universities and colleges in 2000, the government relocated universitiesto different regions and the undergraduate programmes were moved to campuses far awayfrom any urban centre. Consequently, higher education by correspondence is taken up bythose who cannot afford to live away from home. This has had a marked effect on teachersubject competencies and training. Many teachers, especially in the rural areas, have barelyfinished secondary school.6

Basic education is divided into the normal mainstream as well as technical and voca-tional education. There is a high primary enrolment ratio. Nevertheless, primary educationfaces two main problems: there are not enough schools (the numbers ranging from oneschool in five villages to one school in 25 villages in the border regions) and there is a highdropout rate estimated at around 34% (Khin Maung Kyi et al., 2000). The authors alsopoint out the high repetition rate in both rural and urban areas.

Interviews in Yangon with an education charity confirmed the high dropout rates. Itwas explained that children show up for the first school day and that access statistics arebased on this. However, often, a few days into the school year, children particularly inrural areas stop attending school. In part, such drop out is based on the high direct costsof sending children to school (such as buying books and uniforms). In the rural areas thisis supplemented by the high opportunity cost for parents who need their children’s work-ing help. Although schooling is free in principle, parents are expected to contribute to thefinancing of education by not only paying for uniforms and books, but by offering dona-tions in cash and kind as well as often supplementing teacher salaries. State expenditureon education as a share of GDP is decreasing and schools do not have enough funds to run(Khin Maung Kyi et al., 2000, p. 147). Those who cannot afford to go to state schools goto monastic schools, which do not require parents to purchase uniforms or books,7 or forgotheir education altogether. In 2005, it was estimated that 1500 monastic schools catered for93,000 children (Achilles, 2005). According to data collected by the Ministry of ReligiousAffairs, the 2009 enrolment in registered monastic schools was 196,458 children acrossthe country.8 In some cases the buildings have been provided by the state but parents have

Critical Studies in Education 223

to pool their funds to pay for a teacher. This is especially the case in more remote areas(Lorch, 2007).

As Myanmar has signed the UNESCO-promoted ‘Education For All’ declaration,monastic schools are now needed to provide education across all sections of society andacross the country. Only by including the monastic schools will the Myanmar governmentbe able to demonstrate that there is a genuine movement to promote universal education.Consequently, the status of monastic schools is changing and they are in a more prominentposition than at any time since independence. The ministerial language referring to monas-tic schools is reflecting these changes as what was formerly seen as ‘non-formal’ educationis today increasingly referred to as ‘formal’ education provision.9

The history of CCA and how it became an INGO priority

The historical and philosophical roots of CCA go back in history to Jean Jacques Rousseau(1712–1778). His views stood in contrast to the old puritan assumptions that children werefrom the moment of birth ‘in a state of fallen grace from which they had to be saved’(Doddington & Hilton, 2007, p. XV). This notion had influenced the educational phi-losophy before the Enlightenment. John Locke’s Essay concerning human understandingand Some thoughts concerning education written 1690 and 1693, respectively, argued fora liberal education of children (Doddington & Hilton, 2007, p. XVI). His ideas, whichlater were picked up and developed by Bourdieu (especially with regard to the middleclasses), explored the notions of cultural capital of language, ways of thinking, talent andmanners. In the nineteenth century, Johann Pestalozzi (1746–1827) developed his owneducational approach based on Locke. He believed in the child’s innate wisdom, whichhad to be nurtured, and that children were active learners who needed stimulation. Suchnotions were underscored by the romantic poets such as Wordsworth, who believed inchildhood innocence. It was, however, not until the Kindergarten, invented by FriedrichFroebel (1782–1852), which focused on the instincts and play of the young child, thatCCA received an institutional boost across Western Europe. The ‘Kindergarten’ was toallow children to grow as in a garden which had to be guarded and cultivated. Children, heargued, naturally mimic the social world around them. Froebel developed a practical guideand encouraged children to use sticks and wooden blocks and bricks to express ideas.

Beyond Rousseau, Locke and Pestalozzi, the main CCA educationalists were often alsopsychologists. The theoretical underpinnings of CCA lie in Lev Vygotsky’s (1896–1934)work and social constructivism, which believes that ‘individual knowledge is constructed,contested, shared and changed’. Learning is not linear and ‘does not occur on a time lineof basic skills, but instead occurs at a very uneven pace and proceeds in many differentdirections at once’ (King, 2008, pp. 8–9) Maria Montessori (1870–1952), building on JeanPiaget’s (1896–1980) observation of children, contributed to CCA by adopting an approachwhich allowed the children to self-direct their learning. Her work also contributed to trans-forming the role of the teacher: teachers have to be ‘responsive to the different learningstyles and ‘intelligences’ of their learners as well as their learners’ cultural and linguisticbackgrounds’ (Falk, 2009, p. 29)

The CCA is known by various names and means different things to different people. Inthe literature on CCA, Chung and Walsh (2000) found 40 different meanings of the term incontemporary usage. The CCA is a philosophy, not a methodology – which is why there areso many different approaches, and classrooms, when it is applied, look very different. Thereis, despite this plethora of usages, a common ideological basis, however not without dis-putes and disagreements. In essence, the CCA approach to education focuses on the needs

224 M. Lall

of the learners, rather than the teachers. Consequently this approach requires a differentdesign of the curriculum and an understanding of the interconnections between subjects.Learning becomes an active process for the individual student as well as an interactive pro-cess between students, as learning is constructed together in social activity. Learning is, asWatkins (2003) puts it, conceptualised as ‘individual sense making’.

Whilst at first the opposition to CCA was one linked to educating the masses inindustrialising urban slums where the lack of teachers and large classes made such anapproach impractical, the later opposition to CCA was one based on wanting a systemwhere performance could be measured.

There are, however, some real drawbacks of CCA that have emerged after its use inschools across the UK, the US and Canada which go beyond the philosophical debates.Since children are expected to learn at their own pace, some fall behind the rest of the classand never catch up. Some parents feel that their children are not learning basic skills. Thefact that children’s needs are supposed to lead the curriculum also throws up the difficultyof knowing what a child’s educational needs are, how these change over time and how thecurriculum is to be structured around it. There are likely to be disagreements with regard toculture and contexts and a ‘needs-based curriculum’ offers no basis for ‘judging one kindof curriculum to be preferable to another’ (Darling, 1994, p. 71) Generally, critics of theCCA process state that it is too individualistic and too vague (p. 76). Other critiques focusmore on the role of the teacher and how in CCA the teacher’s role is ‘reduced’ to one ofa facilitator and therefore unnecessarily limits the relationship between teachers and theirstudents. This has more recently been critiqued from a critical feminist, post-modern andpost-structural approach. (Langford, 2010, p. 113) The fact that child centred approacheshave not taken part in many evaluations, make it difficult to acclaim how successful theapproach actually is in practice.

The CCA stands in contrast to a highly prescribed curriculum where a great deal ofjudgement and decision making is removed from the classroom teacher. Historically, therehas been a struggle between the teacher centred approach, which focuses on performance(outcomes, measurement and management) and the CCA, which has learning (process,construction and participation) at its heart. This dispute continues today, as many west-ern countries have returned to a teaching methodology which favours performance andmeasurement and has consequently eroded the child centred learning approach as schoolsoperate in an increasingly competitive environment. However, in many developing coun-tries there is an increased push to operate in a CCA environment – something supported byinternational organisations such as UNICEF and JICA, western aid and development bud-gets from ministries such as the UK Department for International Development, as well aslocal NGOs who receive a lot of their funding through these agencies. It seems to be anideological position that CCA is the ‘better’ way of teaching and learning and somethingwhich should be brought from the west to the developing world as a policy flow. A criti-cal engagement with the approach is generally not encouraged. Consequently what can bewitnessed in schools across Asia and Africa today is more often than not linked to UN andother developmental organisations who have built CCA-based educational programmessuited for schools in developing countries.

International ‘policy borrowing’ and the role of international education agencies

At a global level there has increasingly been a convergence in discourse, values and policiesresulting in policy borrowing where similar solutions are being offered for differing prob-lems in different settings. Mostly this is manifested in the spread of privatisation policies

Critical Studies in Education 225

(Rizvi & Lingard, 2010). Part of the international structures which have helped instatesimilar economic practices in developing countries are the World Bank and the IMF. Theiradvocated structural reform programmes across developing countries have ensured that themessage of the efficiency and effectiveness of the markets as providers of public servicessuch as education has reached developing countries. The push for CCA is in a way a sim-ilar form of convergence of discourse, pushed by international agencies such as UNICEF,focusing on ‘effective’ teaching. The western idea that CCA is a ‘good’ way of teachingand all other ways are ‘bad’ has led to changes in education policies in developing countriessuch as India10 and Pakistan.11 In Myanmar the Ministry of Education has also endorsedthe new method and allowed for its teachers to be trained, however for reasons not exploredhere, it fails to translate into the classroom. This study does not look at classroom transi-tions, but at how teachers and families perceive CCA. The fact that aid money allocatedto the education sector is often associated with CCA in the form of allocations for teachertraining, curriculum development and school improvement has also helped the roll out ofthis policy idea. Steiner Khamsi working on Mongolia has detailed how funding of particu-lar education programmes is linked to policies and how this funding translates that donors’policy priorities, which then are pushed in the ‘importing’ countries. (Steiner-Khamsi &Stolpe, 2006).

The wider background to such education policy idea flows are the MillenniumDevelopment Goals,12 which envision universal primary education to be achieved by allsignatory countries by 2015. This means that there has been a push for increased fundingof primary education across developing countries – including the funding of teacher train-ing programmes. UNICEF’s main CCA policy has been an international programme ofChild Friendly Schools,13 which has been rolled out across Africa and Asia trying to helpwith issues such as large classrooms, multi grade teaching, lack of teaching materials andother issues prevalent in developing countries. At the heart of the programme is an aware-ness of children’s rights, ‘human dignity, equality and freedom’ (UNICEF, 2009, p. 31).The Child Friendly Schools (CFS) project was initiated in Thailand in 1998 and has sincespread to many other countries all over the world. The CFS mission statement is ‘to developchild-centred learning environments for all children, especially the disadvantaged, throughactivity-based quality education and healthy school environments, while engaging fami-lies and educational and social communities in the process of transformation’ (UNICEF,2004), in effect creating a policy of CCA+.

In many ways, CCA has become a central part in the globalised education policythat is exported by UN agencies and international aid and development ministries andfacilitated by their corresponding budgets. Whilst the exporting institutions and countrieshave tried very hard to ‘sell’ the policy to the Myanmar government and its Ministry ofEducation, they have had much more success in the semi-formal monastic education sys-tem, largely because the monastic schools are underfunded and do not have access to anyform of training. The ‘aid’ money which is distributed to these schools comes in the formof teacher training and workshops which promote this approach. In doing so, the INGOsand departments for development create alliances with the monastic networks and manageto circumvent the state. Local NGOs that have picked up training contracts have developeda cascading model where one trainer trains a number of teachers as trainers who then passtheir knowledge on to others, either training then as trainers or training them how to applythe methodology. The two types of training are distinct, but often those who have receivedsome training are expected to be able to train others even if they were not actually trainedas trainers. Education consultants operate across the country, promoting their particularbrand of training and CCA (which is often paid for again by the INGOs). The fundamental

226 M. Lall

CCA philosophy is the same; however, both the approach and the content of the trainingsdiffer depending on the trainer and the NGO. How this has panned out in Myanmar and theresulting network of training, teaching and education organisations will be discussed in thenext section.

CCA – the reality in Myanmar and the creation of a cross-national inter-agencynetwork

In the late 1990s UNICEF and JICA started to train teachers in CCA in the state sec-tor with the Ministry’s blessing but not accessing the non-formal or monastic sector. Byaround 2003–2004 an organisation called ‘Pestalozzi’ also started to offer training in themonastic schools, amongst others at a key monastery in Mandalay from where the prac-tice spread to other monasteries. This monastery is today the nodal point for CCA teachertraining in the country. Since 2005, the number of local and international aid agency CCAtraining providers who work exclusively with monastic schools has grown remarkably.They include Save the Children, Asia Peace and Education Foundation (APEF), HanthaEducators, Yinthway and Shalom Foundation amongst others.14 A separate programmefunded by a US charity and run through an office in Thailand also started to train monas-tic school teachers and head monks in a CCA teaching methodology.15 Cyclone Nargis,which struck in May 2008, resulted in increased international aid money to Myanmar forthe first time in decades. The combination of these non-state actors and the increase ininternational funding, allowed the non-state education sector to develop for the first timein decades. International NGOs who were allowed increased access after the cyclone, suchas Save the Children, also brought with them programmes geared towards an expansionof teacher training provision and funding for further training especially in the non-formalsector. Today as a result, the international and local training and aid agencies and selectedkey monasteries are linked with each other, despite also being in competition for the inter-national aid money which pays for training programmes. However, despite all these links,research revealed that there is hardly any coordination between the various actors and oftentraining is repeated in the same monasteries by various organisations without them everknowing about the previous training provided by others. Most of the key NGOs involvedare not-for-profit; however, in order to deliver training, education consultants who chargehigh fees are employed. This research seems to point to the fact that the limited numbersof teacher trainers and consultants had been trained on internationally funded programmesthrough not-for-profit organisations, which then hired the same consultants for a fee todeliver the teacher training more widely. It is therefore in the interest of the consultants tomake sure that CCA continues to be rolled out with international funds. One organisationhas now decided to bypass the consultants’ network by training its own teacher trainers.However, expanding these teacher training programmes in order to further the roll out ofCCA requires international aid and education money to be earmarked for CCA. It is there-fore in the NGOs interest to make sure that the roll out of CCA continues in order to be ableto keep funding their staff and their programmes. Consequently a network linking INGOswith local NGOs, who in turn liaise with nodal monasteries, has been created in order toexport the CCA methodology.

Figure 1 shows the linkages and the main actors are briefly described below. It showsthe proliferation of (I)NGOs in the field of teacher training and their involvement inpromoting CCA. It also shows how the various organisations are networked with eachother, often use the same trainers and are promoting UNICEF’s and JICA’s internationaleducation policy.

Critical Studies in Education 227

JICA

Ministry of Education

SHALOMSave the Children

YINTHWAY

Consultants (YANGON)

HANTHA

PESTALOZZI

Ministry of Religious

Affairs

MONASTERY(Mandalay)

CCA Thailand

ProgrammeTHAILAND

APEF

UNICEF

STATESCHOOLS

MONASTERIES(Others)

ETHNIC MINORITY

AREAS

EMERGENCY& DISASTER

AREAS

Centre for Promotion of

Monastic Education

OTHERMONASTERIES

Figure 1. Linkages of the main actors promoting CCA in Myanmar.

All the organisations and agencies detailed in Figure 1 are working to develop CCAteaching methods in Myanmar’s monastic schools as a primary aim. They compete forfunding from international aid budgets and many use the same consultants as master train-ers. International funding is key in funding the organisations and in maintaining theirprogrammes. In part this has led to a lack of a critical approach when it comes to CCA.The main players are described below.

Hantha Trainers

Hantha Trainers is a private not-for-profit organisation that developed in 2005 with the helpof a former state school teacher (who was trained by UNICEF) who started to facilitateformer government teachers to become teacher trainers. They are using a cascading clustersystem and are active in monastic networks both in ethnic as well as Bamar dominated partof the country.

Shalom Foundation

The Shalom Foundation has been involved in peace building exercises between the ethnicminority groups and the Myanmar government. In education the not-for-profit organisationhas specialized in training teachers in the ethnic minority areas since 2005. They havefunded a local Yangon-based consultant to train their master trainers who have cascadedthe model to 60 other teacher trainers now active in ethnic ceasefire areas.

228 M. Lall

Yinthway Foundation

The Yinthway Foundation is a local NGO that started teacher training in 2008 and has cometo CCA through their programme on early childhood development and early childhoodbooks. They developed a relationship with UNICEF and are currently developing threemodel schools in Yangon, Lashio and Mandalay. They are funded by INGOs and workwith local partners on the ground, which include Christian organisations in ethnic minorityareas and monastic schools, as well as monastic schools in Bamar majority areas.

Save the Children

Save the Children came in with teacher training after Cyclone Nargis and brought withthem a methodology designed for areas in conflict and crisis. They have used the sameconsultant as Shalom to train their teacher trainers.

APEF

APEF, an Australian charity, was built up after Cyclone Nargis and based its method onthe training offered previously by UNICEF. The programme is linked with the Mandalaymonastery, which has established the Centre for the Promotion of Monastic Education,which has in-house trainers who help train teachers across the wider network linked withthis monastery. The Mandalay-based monastery also has links to the programme run outof Thailand. In 2008, 150 teachers were trained to become independent trainers and 50of these were taken over by Yinthway as facilitators for their own programme. APEF alsorecruited some of these trainers and APEF’s teacher training programme began in earnestin March 2009 with British and German aid funding. They now have 12 master trainerswho work in different areas of the country and train teachers across monastic networks inthe Delta and in Yangon division. They have also developed their own training manual inMyanmar.

Most of these organisations now work in remote ethnic and rural areas as well as urbancentres, spreading the philosophy and methods widely. Some monasteries have embracedthe new methodology and are feeding the approach through their own networks to othermonasteries. The acceptance of the new ways of teaching depends largely on the headmonk who runs the school. However, there is also local resistance, mainly by older andoften male teachers who want to stick with their teacher centric teaching method. But thereare other issues as well – not least with monks who feel the new method entails noise,parents and teachers who feel the children lose respect for authority and the actual realityof the overcrowded Myanmar classroom on the ground, which does not easily allow forgroup work and props integral to a CCA teaching approach. The next section will detailthe local reactions to CCA across the monasteries visited.

The situation on the ground: a clash between local views and a western approach

The teachers in monastic schools do not come from the same pool as those who teach in thestate system. There is no formal pre-service training and many, especially in the rural areas,have had no more than the 11 years of basic schooling. Head monks usually want universitygraduates but often have to compromise and accept the most qualified local staff. Manyare very young – and in one school in particular there was a preference to employ theirown graduates after they finished year 11. They teach in very difficult settings: crowded

Critical Studies in Education 229

classrooms with often over 100 children per class, sometimes in halls housing multipleclasses with hardly any partitions. There are few if any teaching aids. Time is tight as well,with double shifts running in many of the schools visited.

During the almost three-week long fieldwork the research required an intensive engage-ment with the schools and the teachers. On average two to three days were spent in eachone of the four main monasteries and a day in every other one visited. The teachers whowere interviewed mostly had had some CCA training, some even by different providersadopting varying approaches. They were asked about their own understanding of CCA andtheir definition of CCA. They were asked to illustrate how they applied CCA in the class-room with examples. They were also asked about the difficulties they faced and why incertain cases they did not want or were not able to apply CCA. The groups also discussedthe merits of the different training some had received. Most teachers were female but ineach school there were male teachers as well. The focus groups were therefore often singlesex. In the focus groups where men participated, it was interesting to note that the womendid not defer to their male colleagues as one could have expected in a traditional Myanmarmonastic surrounding. In general, CCA was more easily adopted by the younger women.Based both on classroom observations and interviews, it seemed that a few of the maleteachers seemed resistant to changing their ways, one stating that ‘some subjects are suit-able for CCA teaching and some are not’. Since female teachers were mostly responsiblefor the younger classes, making the adoption of CCA methods not only gender dependentbut also related to the age of the students and the level of the class. Younger women spokefrequently about how they had fewer problems in the changing hierarchies where studentsfeel free to ask questions and where the traditional silent respect for teachers is eroded. Itwas interesting to note that there were no substantial variations between regions, or monas-teries located in urban or rural areas, but that the main difference in approaching CCA wasindeed based first on gender and then age. Whilst this might sound oversimplified, headmonks confirmed that they found the young women more ready and able to change andadapt their teaching methods than their older male colleagues.

Whilst teachers understand the methodology, they often face many obstacles in apply-ing CCA across the board. In some schools visited, CCA was being applied a few hoursa day – in other schools it was dependent on the class and subject. In all cases it wasdependent on how confident the teacher felt in using the methodology. Many teachers saidthat they were still finding their feet and that they needed practice in using the new method.They had been led to believe that the method would improve their teaching but were outsidetheir comfort zone in using it. As one of the head monks said: ‘If they cannot understandnew method they do not dare let go of the old method’ (vice principal, monastery 2).

However, the teachers spoke about how children had changed once new teaching meth-ods were used. Children were seen to be more engaged and happy to come to school.Parents in particular mentioned how children were excited by the prospect of going toclass in the morning. Teachers mentioned fewer absences and drop outs as proof that chil-dren were more engaged. In the classroom, the teachers said that the children’s confidencewas raised and many were no longer afraid to ask questions. ‘They feel they [the children]can say what they want to do and feel more able to do things by themselves’ (teacher,school 3). This was a commonly echoed refrain. Children were also more curious, inter-ested and keen to explore. ‘If students don’t have to memorise then they will become moreinterested’ (teacher, school 2). Many female teachers also spoke at length about the new‘bond’ they felt children were developing with them and that generally this meant they hada closer relationship and that classroom relations were no longer based on fear. ‘My stu-dents say what they want to say’ a female teacher said (school 2). Another female teacher

230 M. Lall

said, ‘Before using CCA my students were afraid. And reluctant. Now they dare to dis-cuss and ask questions. They can even have fun with teachers’ (school 5). The absenceof corporal punishment in all classes visited contributed to that bonding process. Someteachers, however (male teachers predominantly), felt that this closer bond also eroded thetraditional respect children had for teachers and some parents also expressed worries tothat effect. ‘Children become noisy’ (parents, school 1; teachers, school 4) and the newmethod was seen as a discipline problem at home and at school as well as by other monksin the monasteries where the schools were located. One teacher in school 5 recounted howa parent had complained to her: ‘The parent said that the children talk too much. They askquestions we cannot answer. Now the children are becoming the teacher in the home.’

Nonetheless, despite positive results and feedback, CCA was often seen as a ‘foreign’or ‘western’ way to teach. The issue of what was perceived as the loss of respect towardselders was seen as the key problem. In the long discussions with teachers about Myanmar’stransition into ‘modern’ times and how children should be equipped for life outside theschool and the home, it was often suggested that there was a need for a Myanmar-centricCCA, which would encompass Asian values. One of the teachers suggested ‘to do work-shops which do analysis to get CCA which is in harmony with Myanmar culture’. Onetraining provider mentioned how CCA could be compared to Buddha’s teaching – a warmrelationship but with respect, and that teachers had to know how to cultivate in childrenthe respect for teachers, parents and other elders. The CCA could reflect Buddhist valuesif teachers were properly trained and had a deeper understanding of their own culture, itdid not necessarily mean the loss of boundaries even if the child is at the centre and is ableto ask questions. ‘There will be no cultural shock in questioning, playing games, singingand dancing through awareness’ another teacher (school 1) said. Clearly this is a very finebalance to strike and most engaged in this conversation tended to say that they were notsure how to do it.

The other main issues when it comes to the application of CCA are the logistical dif-ficulties in applying CCA in the schools as they stood and were equipped at present. Allthose interviewed complained about class sizes and student to teacher ratios – often at 100students to 1 teacher. This was generally compounded by the lack of space. One classroomvisited was so full that the teacher had to climb on the benches the students were sitting onto get beyond the 1st row to the back of the classroom. The space was so tight that a straydog entered and hid behind a bench and could not be chased out. The student to teacherratio did not seem that important when there were teaching assistants or second teacherspresent and when there was enough space to form small groups of student to work together(i.e., if furniture can be moved). Linked to the large classes is the issue of managing tocover the lesson in a certain amount of time. Whilst with a small group the teacher canspend time with each group and help, large numbers of students mean that either eachgroup gets little time or some groups are left out. Teachers often grumbled about the lackof time to get through the lesson.

The lack of teaching aids was often mentioned as being a problem. One trainingprovider has developed teaching aids from recycled materials and shows teachers how tomake their own – but in some very poor areas even these materials might not be available– and often teachers are seen struggling with just a blackboard and a few pieces of paperwhere they can draw pictures.

In the schools visited, a number have double shifts. The teachers all teach both shifts.This means a 6am start and an 11 hour day. Teachers don’t have the time to prepare lessonsand even less time to construct teaching aids. Sometimes there are libraries where teacherscan get the extra information they need – often, however, the books there are of limited

Critical Studies in Education 231

value to a CCA curriculum. Only one school visited had decent materials for both studentsand teachers.

The teachers interviewed also mentioned how they had found that in many schoolswhere they had colleagues, the principal was unhappy with any change of teaching method-ology. If the principal or the head monk of the cluster was not on board, teachers would runinto difficulties. This was compounded by monks who felt that their environment shouldnot be disturbed by noisy children all day long (with double shifts, schools run from 6amto 5pm). In many schools, only a few teachers had received training and inter-collegialdifficulties grew out of the emergence of new hierarchies (headed by those trained as train-ers). This created difficulties between teachers responsible for older students and those whotaught with the new methods in younger classes. The fact that parents were hard to engage(mostly because of their living hand-to-mouth) meant that it was more difficult to get themto understand what the children were doing at school and support it.

The abovementioned difficulties, cultural and practical, are largely ignored by the train-ing networks, who insist that the positive effects of CCA outweigh the cultural issues andthe practical concerns. Iternational NGOs and local training providers are mainly focusedon getting ‘buy-in’ to their new method and a quick spread through the cascading modelwhereby teachers are trained and then teach other teachers. Within the western educationliterature, where CCA emerged, there are critiques but these were not passed on to thewider stakeholders such as head monks and teachers so that they can form a balancedview and develop their own opinion. In effect, CCA is exported and subsequently pushedthrough these networks which use it to maintain and expand their programmes and supporta handful of consultants who draw commercial profit from the endeavour.

Conclusion

The CCA has become a centrepiece of a globalised education policy, INGOs foster itsroll out through local NGOs and education training consultants in developing countries,facilitated by international aid budgets. In Myanmar, the INGO-promoted roll out of CCAhas attached funds and has led to the creation of an education network which pushes thenew methods through monastic schools networks. The INGOs have disseminated CCAas a method or a product rather than as a set of contested educational values. This hasresulted, on the one hand, in some improved teaching, as evidenced by reporting of chil-dren’s enthusiasm – but, on the other, it has also fostered resistance as the largely westernapproach is seen to be eroding respect for traditional hierarchies. The practical considera-tions of applying a method largely conceived for small groups of students in large classesof 100+ students are also not taken into account. Whilst this study only focused on CCAand Myanmar, the article aims to show that the roll out of what can be termed ‘good’ west-ern teaching approaches can also lead to unintended consequences and new problems onthe ground, which are not picked up by the education networks which are hardwired intodonor and funding structures. Policy borrowing as has been shown by Steiner Khamsi andStolpe (2006) can be problematic. What we learn from this case is that NGOs and INGOswho are importing western educational practices to other countries must look beyond the‘effectiveness’ of the model in the west and should adapt models to local contexts beforeimplementation, but also leave room for development of context-specific models based ontheir experiences with implementation. Because each context is subtly different, in orderfor NGOs to deliver effective educational policy change, they must adapt the policy tosuit the particular local needs – that is, of course, if the end goal is in fact creating bettereducation policy and not simply self-perpetuating their role and their funding.

232 M. Lall

Notes1. However, (predominantly ethnic nationality) people living in areas affected by ongoing armed

conflict often lack access to basic schooling. There are also access issues in more remote ruralareas.

2. Teaching both in and outside the state sector is badly paid and there is a shortage of teachers,especially in the rural areas. Therefore even in the state schools one will find teachers withoutthe required qualification. In the monastic sector few teachers have studied beyond secondaryschool.

3. ‘Divisions’ have since been renamed ‘Regions’.4. It is not helpful with regard to monastic schools to talk about year groups and age ranges, as

multi-age and multi-grade teaching are common and it differs from school to school and areato area.

5. Their families comprised 236 children or grandchildren.6. Even if a student finishes school he or she will be very young – in Myanmar children start

school at the age of five. Primary and secondary schooling lasts 11 years. This means that whenthe students are ready to start university they are 16 years of age.

7. The ‘better’ monastic schools will however often require a donation of some sort to register thechild.

8. This means that there could be well over double that number in the non-registered but affiliatedmonastic schools and even more children when border areas are taken into account. There areno figures on the ratio of children attending state and monastic schools.

9. Interview, Yangon 8 June, 2010.10. See, for example, the incorporation of activities based learning (a form of CCA) into

India’s Sarva Siksha Abhiyan programme (the national education reform programme for pri-mary schools). This document, taken from the Tamil Nadu government links it with EFA.http://www.ssa.tn.nic.in/CurrActivities-A.htm

11. See, for example, the adoption of the term ‘child friendly’ as part of Pakistan’snational education policy (http://www.moe.gov.pk/nepr/NEP_2009.PDF p. 22 and http://icfe.teachereducation.net.pk/documents/Draft%20Session%20Plan.pdf)

12. http://www.un.org/millenniumgoals/13. http://www.unicef.org/education/index_focus_schools.html14. Save the Children is one of the few organisation operating in education in Myanmar which has

a website, however with very little information on their work: http://www.savethechildren.org/site/c.8rKLIXMGIpI4E/b.6150543/k.D615/Myanmar.htm Yinthway - http://www.yinthway.org/; APEF - http://www.apef.org.au/education.html. Given the size and resources of the otherlocal organisations and the fact that they would prefer to avoid governmental scrutiny noinformation is available on the internet.

15. Given the sensitivity of the programme and the funder, both have to remain unnamed.

Notes on contributor

Dr Marie Lall is a South Asia specialist and a senior lecturer at the Institute of Education,University of London. Her research focuses on the politics of South Asia, specifically Indiaand Pakistan as well as Myanmar, and she has years of field experience in the region.She has written widely on education policy and the formation of national identity andcitizenship in South Asia. She is the author of India’s missed opportunity (Ashgate, 2001)and the editor of Education as a political tool in Asia (Routledge, 2009) as well as theauthor of a large number of articles and chapters on the region.

ReferencesAchilles, J. (2005). Das bildungswesen in Birma/Myanmar: Erfahrungen zum engagement

im bildungsbereich. In U. Bey (Ed.), Armut im land der pagoden, Focus Asien nr.26 [The education system in Burma: experiences of engagement in education. In U.Bey (Ed.), Poverty in the country of Pagodas, Focus Asien No. 26.]. Retrieved fromhttp://www.asienhaus.de/public/archiv/focus26-031.pdf

Critical Studies in Education 233

Chung, S., & Walsh, D. (2000). Unpacking child-centredness: A history of meanings. Journal ofCurriculum Studies, 32(2), 215–234.

Darling, J. (1994). Child centred education and its critics. London: Paul Chapman.Doddington, C., & Hilton, M. (2007). Child-centred education: Reviving the creative tradition.

London: Sage.Falk, B. (2009). Teaching the way children learn. New York: Teachers College Press and National

Education Association, Columbia University New York.King, R.M. (2008). Enriching the lives of children: Creating meaningful and novel stimulus experi-

ences to promote cognitive, moral and emotional development. Cambridge: Cambridge ScholarsPublishing.

Kyi, K.M., Ronald Findlay, R.M. Sundrum, M.M., Myo N., Zaw, O., et al. (2000). Economicdevelopment of Burma: A vision and a strategy. Stockholm: Olof Palme International Centre.

Lall, M. (2009). Education in Myanmar: The interplay of state, civil society and business. In M.Skidmore, & T. Wilson (Eds.), Dictatorship, disorder and decline in Myanmar (pp. 127–150).Canberra: ANU E-Pres.

Langford, R. (2010). Critiquing child-centred pedagogy to bring children and early childhood educa-tors into the centre of a democratic pedagogy. Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood, 11(1),113–126.

Lorch, J. (2007). Myanmar’s civil society: A patch for the national education system? The emergenceof civil society in areas of state weakness. SÜDOSTASIEN aktuell, (3), 54–88.

Lwin, T. (2000). Education in Burma (1945–2000) (2nd ed.). Retrieved September 2010, fromhttp://www.burmalibrary.org/show.php?cat=164

Ministry of Religious Affairs. (2009). Monastic education monitoring group, list of monastic andnunnery schools, 2008–2009 academic year. Nay Pyi Taw, Myanmar: Author.

Rizvi, F., & Lingard, B. (2010). Globalizing education policy. London: Routledge.Steiner-Khamsi, G., & Stolpe, I. (2006). Educational import in Mongolia: Local encounters with

global forces. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.UNESCO. (2007). Statistics. Retrieved September 2010, from https://portal.ioe.ac.uk/http/stats.

uis.unesco.org/unesco/TableViewer/document.aspx?ReportId=121&IF_Language=eng&BR_Country=1040

UNICEF. (2004). Child friendly schools. Retrieved September 2010, from http://www.unicef.org/lifeskills/index_7260.html

UNICEF. (2009). Testimonies on child friendly schools from the field: South Africa. Pretoria:UNICEF South Africa.

Watkins, C. (2003). Learning, a sense-maker’s guide. London: ATL.

Copyright of Critical Studies in Education is the property of Routledge and its content may not be copied or

emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission.

However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.