NONFORMAL EDUCATION, DISTANCE EDUCATION AND

THE RESTRUCTURING OF SCHOOLING:

CHALLENGES FOR A NEW BASIC EDUCATION POLICY

WIM HOPPERS1

Abstract – This article argues that the present crisis of basic education for young
people in Africa reveals problems that are more fundamental than enrollments, inputs
and costs. They are related to the very structure and substance of educational provi-
sion. Of particular concern is the fact that schools find it difficult to respond to the
different needs and circumstances of their pupils and to organize learning experi-
ences that are sensitive to the social, cultural and economic environment. The author
maintains that non-conventional approaches to learning, associated with nonformal
education and distance education, have important but distinct contributions to make
to the reform of mainstream schooling and could help to open up the formal system
from within.

Zusammenfassung – Dieser Artikel untersucht die These, daß der gegenwärtigen

Krise in der Grundbildung junger Menschen in Afrika Probleme zugrundeliegen, die
über Einzelfaktoren wie Beteiligungsraten, Mitteleinsatz und Kosten hinausgehen. Sie
hängen mit der prinzipiellen Struktur und Substanz der Bildungsarbeit zusammen.
Besonders beunruhigend ist die Tatsache, daß die Schulen Schwierigkeiten haben, den
unterschiedlichen Bedürfnissen und Lebensumständen ihrer Schüler gerecht zu werden
und Lernerfahrungen zu vermitteln, die das soziale, kulturelle und wirtschaftliche
Umfeld berücksichtigen. Nach der Meinung des Autors leisten unkonventionelle
Lernansätze, verbunden mit non-formaler Bildungsarbeit und Fernunterricht, einen
wichtigen eigenständigen Beitrag zur Reform des Bildungswesens, und könnten helfen,
das formale Bildungssystem von innen aus zu erneuern.

Résumé – Cet article avance que la crise que connaît actuellement l’éducation de base
pour les jeunes adultes en Afrique signale des problèmes plus profonds que des
difficultés d’inscription, de programme ou de coût. Ils sont liés à la structure et à la
substance même du système éducatif. Il est particulièrement inquiétant que les écoles
rencontrent des difficultés à répondre aux différents besoins et conditions de leurs
élèves, et à organiser des expériences éducatives qui soient sensibles à leur environ-
nement social, culturel et économique. L’auteur maintient que les méthodes
d’enseignement non conventionnelles, associées à l’éducation non formelle et à l’édu-
cation à distance, renferment un potentiel important et spécifique pour réformer
l’enseignement dominant, et pourraient contribuer à ouvrir le système officiel de
l’intérieur.

Resumen – Este artículo plantea que la crisis actual que está viviendo la educación
básica de gente joven en Africa revela problemas que son más fundamentales que las
matrículas, inversiones y costos. Los problemas se relacionan con la estructura y la
sustancia misma de la oferta educacional. Uno de los problemas específicos reside en
las dificultades que tienen las escuelas en responder a las diferentes necesidades y
circunstancias de sus alumnos y en ofrecer experiencias de aprendizaje sensibles al
entorno social, cultural y económico. El autor sostiene que los enfoques no conven-
cionales del aprendizaje, asociados con la educación no formal y la educación a dis-

International Review of Education – Internationale Zeitschrift für Erziehungswissenschaft

– Revue Internationale de l’Education 46(1/2): 5–30, 2000.
 2000 Kluwer Academic Publishers. Printed in the Netherlands.
6

tancia, pueden prestar contribuciones importantes bien perceptibles para reformar la

corriente principal de la enseñanza escolar, y que podrían ayudar a abrir el sistema
formal desde adentro.

The case for restructuring of schooling

In Africa the schooling system continues to be an object of great controversy.

While governments try to plan for greater access, quality and efficiency of
formal basic education, many ordinary people worry about the increasing costs
of schooling, its imperviousness to change, and its diminishing relevance for
the lives of their children. Schooling in the conventional sense is increas-
ingly regarded as an overly expensive, exclusive and unresponsive to the needs
of vast numbers of learners. As a result over the years an apparent contra-
diction has emerged between the formal endorsements of education as a human
right and the evidence of faltering social demand for schooling per se
(Berstecher and Car-Hill 1990: 63).
Fortunately there is a growing awareness of the fundamental problem of
schooling around the African continent, one that goes beyond enrollment
percentages, supply of inputs and didactical styles. Such analysis aims to look
critically at the very processes and modalities of learning in relation to the
needs of different client groups and at the precise interactions between
schooling and the local environment. The interest stems from a broad concern
 7

about the actual nature and purpose of schooling and the manner in which
such education affects the quality of people’s lives.
There are at least four key dimensions to this concern: one is economic,
one is pedagogic, one is cultural, and one is gender-related. The first stems
from the international agencies’ preoccupation with “poverty reduction”. This
has led to an interest in schooling that moves beyond aggregate statistical
correlations. The reasoning here is that the “poor” need to participate more
fully in growth. For this to happen access to basic services is essential; but
so is space for local interpretations of “growth” and their reflection in devel-
oping planning. Universal notions of growth ignore local perspectives of what
constitutes needs and priorities, and what is defined as “progress” and
“advancement”. The importance of articulating such perspectives as a basis
for enhanced local participation leads to an interest in what knowledge, norms
and values schools actually disseminate. Findings in this regard do not
correspond with what is regarded as essential for promoting local economic
initiatives. Education does not deliver the goods (Picciotto 1996).
Related to this is the growing acknowledgement among educationists that
conventional school systems fail to help children pick up basic skills and
competencies crucial for continued learning and for coping with diverse forms
of change. This is only partly due to unsuitable content; it has also much to
do with unsuitable teaching-learning methodologies and with the difficulties
of schools to effectively assist different categories of youngsters. The peda-
gogical critique is that schools cannot handle diversity among their (poten-
tial) clientele: in terms of background, circumstances, age and gender, learning
styles and specific learning needs. The schools’ response is to expect children
to blend into the existing system without structurally adapting the system to
their specific needs (Epstein 1996). When “disfunctionalities” become too
obvious young people with normal cognitive abilities are relegated to special
provisions, which often implies permanent marginalisation.
The cultural dimension has increasingly become an area of attention of
African policymakers and academics. One important focal point for articu-
lating this part of the analysis has been the initiative supporting the “Segou
Perspectives”, undertaken by various African ministers and in 1997 formally
adopted by the OAU Summit (From Jomtien to Segou 1995). In these per-
spectives the central issue determining poor quality in basic education is the
cultural and social gap between the school and the community The disjunc-
ture between (western) school culture and (local) “popular” culture is seen to
contribute greatly to poor pupil learning and the persistence of one-sided
expectations regarding educational benefits (CONFEMEN 1995: 21). In the
process of present schooling the metabolism of African social systems is
destroyed, thus affecting the capacity for social reproduction and renewal,
which is essential for progress (Ki-Zerbo, 1990: 4). Thus it is stated that
students cannot contribute to scientific and technological development if they do
not have a cultural identity that is in keeping with the fundamental values of the
society to which they belong.
8

In this context the issue of language in education has come to loom large
(CONFEMEN, op. cit.)
A radical scrutiny of conventional schooling has been especially advocated
by gender analysts. Applying the cultural analysis to gender some have argued
that western schooling not only alienates girls from their own culture but has
effectively operated to “trade African traditional practices and norms for a
new patriarchy of the western variety”. Rather than being a vehicle for democ-
ratising society through the promotion of merit as a basis for the distribution
of rewards and privilege, at the latent level the school endorses patriarchy,
engenders disempowerment and reinforces authoritarianism (Odora 1996: 6
and 36). The process of learning, even where it is “learner-centred”, is such
that it incapacitates the female child (Odaga and Heneveld 1995). Thus one
cannot continue to skirt around the problem by fleeing into “alternatives” for
school education, but has to confront the formal education system and work
towards reconstructing the very nature and content of learning (Odora 1996:
36/37).
The above concerns add up to a powerful list which reaches beyond the
commonly defined problems of access, quality and costs. They question the
exclusive nature of the school, what it does to the social and cultural identity
of learners, and to what extent it capacitates individuals and communities for
engaging in “lifelong learning” and in their own form of “development”. By
implication they touch on the cultural “grounding” of education as offered in
schools, the social organisation of learning, systems for decision-making and
control, and the relationship with the local economy. The message is that the
notion of schooling needs fundamental changes in its structural features, the
construction of its curriculum and its methodologies of learning.
With this set of concerns in mind this article will review some of the major
“entry points” into the restructuring of formal primary schooling which have
come to the fore in recent decades and which have pointed to ways for the
schooling system to respond to changing notions about learners’ needs. These
entry points are nonformal education and its sporadic intention to “de-
formalise” school education on the one hand, and distance education and its
more recent encapsulation into open learning on the other hand. They are
chosen because each of these has something to say about the structure of
formal education and the nature and organisation of learning in response to
perceived learners’ needs. The article will analyse the present discourses in
relation to these entry points, and their strengths and limitations in contributing
to the restructuring of the schooling system. Several serious stumbling blocks
in pursuing such agenda will be reviewed. The discussion will focus on cir-
cumstances and developments in Sub-Saharan Africa.
 9

Nonformal education

In 1971 UNICEF asked Philip Coombs to conduct a research study on the

following question:

What might be done through nonformal education – in addition to transforming

and strengthening the formal schools – to help meet the minimum essential learning
needs of millions of educationally deprived children and adolescents and to help
accelerate social and economic development in rural areas?

The result of this was the book New Paths to Learning, which still counts as
a seminal publication highlighting ongoing practice and potential of the myriad
learning arrangements outside the formal school (Coombs 1973: 2).
Now, 27 years later, the complaints of Coombs and his colleagues about
the insufficient places, the wastage of the formal system, its lack of relevance,
its rituals and straitjacket are still appropriate. Indeed, they have continued
to guide new initiatives to set up alternative approaches to education all over
the African continent. Nonformal education is still at best a mopping up
operation clearing some of the debris left behind by an intensely faulty formal
schooling system.
At the same time this long period of recognition of nonformal education
practice has not led to significant “transformation” of formal education
systems, nor to a positive identification of nonformal education as a truly
“alternative” system in its own right. It still defines itself by what it is not,
as “organised educational activities outside the established formal system”
(Ibid.: 11), thus leaving the “formal” system as the default setting.

Compensatory vs alternative approaches

What concerns us here is the actual articulation between nonformal educa-

tion (NFE) and formal education, particularly where NFE is intended to
provide “lessons” for the reform of conventional primary schools. Critical in
this respect is the distinction made by Odora between NFE approaches that
accept the deficient situation of formal education as a starting point and those
that do not but posit themselves explicitly as “alternatives” to conventional
schooling in the systemic sense (Odora 1996: 13). Using this distinction, I
come to distinguish between three categories of NFE provisions:
A. Supplementary provisions: this is the “neat” approach that sits very well
in the broader notion of “lifelong learning”. Here NFE is a series of
learning arrangements that either add on to formal education (e.g.
“enrichment” activities) or follow it (e.g. skills training and other forms
of “continuing” education).
B. Compensatory provisions: this is the “problematical” approach, as it
includes programmes that are supposed to compensate young people for
lack of access, eviction, or poor performance of the school system. There
10

tends to be much heroic effort here, often under very poor circumstances,
with little or no support from the state, that sometimes succeeds in securing
(re-) entry into the formal school.
C. Alternative provisions: from the perspective of this article this is the more
“interesting” approach, as programmes in this category intentionally aim
to create an alternative provision that is more relevant and better suited
to the basic education needs of young people. They are regarded by the
organisers as models which if they would obtain broader recognition could
assist in transforming the basic tenets of the mainstream system.
The relevant distinction here is between “compensatory” and “alternative”
provisions, whereby the former category tends to assist poor, marginalised
young people (especially girls) to cope or survive through tailor-made pro-
grammes that often combine core academic skills with a variety of life-
orientation skills or vocational skills. The difference with “alternative” pro-
visions lies less in the quality of what is offered or the resource available,
than in the analysis of the education process and the definition by the stake-
holders of the real agenda they are pursuing. In Africa the history of NFE is
full of initiatives which were innovative, managed to draw in a wide variety
of local and national stakeholders, mobilised unexpected high levels of
resources, and were in modest ways reasonably successful. Nevertheless the
same initiatives have generally also been regarded as “emergency” solutions
providing “temporary” relief until the government could step in and make
either the arrangements unnecessary or turn them into “normal” schools. There
are notable exceptions to this undeserved “self-depreciation”, such as the
“community school” movement in countries like Tanzania in the 1970s
(Buchert 1994), and some of the Zambian community schools more recently
(Durston 1996).
A promising development is the “new basic school” movement in West-
Africa, developed by NGOs and promoted through an Inter-ministerial
Committee under the “Segou Perspectives”. While the “new basic schools”
(NBS) are de facto a parallel provision, in various countries the concept is
used as a frame for redefining the education system as a whole and can thus
be regarded as an “alternative NFE provision”. The NBS promote a focus on
learners and on skills related to the country’s cultural and moral values, but
also to civic responsibilities and to the rapidly modernising world of work.
Thus it incorporates functional bilingualism along with methods adapted to
the needs of economic and social development (Mid-Decade Review of
Progress 1996: 29). This new type of school follows a modular approach, with
flexible school schedules, and flexible use of staff and infrastructure. Learning
outcomes are defined within a general “skills’ profile” that allows for locally
adapted teaching but is assessed through standardised instruments leading to
common certification that will eventually be valid across several countries
(CONFEMEN 1995: 35–42).
It can be argued that, while the continent has shown great inventiveness
 11

and creativity to devise nonformal learning provisions for the “unreached”,

these tend not to have grown into alternative models receiving wide recog-
nition as possible replacements for the classical western schooling system –
such as has been the case with the educacion popular movement in Latin-
America (see Escobar 1989). In fact, to the extent they were known at all to
outsiders, many of these provisions have never been fully investigated for
their possible relevance for the reform of conventional schooling.
A special feature was that during the late 1970s and 1980s NFE became a
favourite terrain of NGOs, who with external assistance experimented with
small education and training schemes focussed on needs for rural develop-
ment. Having moved into a vacuum left by the retreat of embattled states, they
were generally reluctant to allow close contact with government. As a result
parallel systems emerged, which apart from undermining the already weak
government capacity for policy making and planning, de facto exacerbated
existing social inequities and further weakened relationships between people
and the state. In the process the NGOs showed little attention for the improve-
ment of the mainstream system (Jellema and Archer 1997: 3). It is only during
the last decade that NGOs and governments have come to negotiate partner-
ships, which nevertheless are still heavily affected by mutual suspicions and
struggles over competencies (Boukary 1998).

NFE lessons

At this juncture it is worth examining what the formal schooling system could
learn from NFE if there would be a systematic and coherent interest to pursue
such effort. NFE protagonists have always argued that in principle NFE pro-
visions offered vital lessons for the reform of primary education. The initial
hope expressed by Coombs in this regard has been repeated many times
(Coombs 1973: 30). Coombs himself maintained that formal primary educa-
tion, because of its structure and resources, could not be expected to handle
all tasks of NFE, for example as regards the teaching of work-related and
life skills; nor could it play a constructive role in the community. His wish
was that ultimately some degree of complementarity could be achieved, as
there was always “unfinished business” to be done. Nevertheless he listed
several possible innovations to be inspired by NFE (Ibidem: 88/91):
• entry into school at later age;
• a more relevant curriculum;
• teaching in the local language;
• emphasizing practical training;
• convert schools into community learning centres;
• reorienting programmes to suit needs of girls.
Some years ago, as a follow-up to Jomtien, UNICEF enabled an international
team of educationists to work on a “dossier” regarding NFE and universal
12

primary education. This dossier deals with NFE in a more coherent and
focussed manner by distinguishing between NFE as
“a set of complementary programmes for the unreached or poorly served”, and as
“an approach to education . . . leading to greater flexibility in organisation and
management of educational programmes with a decentralized structure and less
authoritarian management style. It also promotes adaptation of programmes to
needs and circumstances of learners, a learner-centred pedagogy, creative ways
of mobilizing and using educational resources, community participation in planning
and management of programmes, and learning content and methods related to
life and environment of learners . . .” (UNICEF 1993: 1).

It is stated that an NFE approach can be applied not only in programmes

labelled as “NFE Programmes”, but also in formal schools, contributing thus
to their flexibility and “de-formalisation”.
The above shows that possible “lessons” of NFE lie in the areas of (1)
school organisation; (2) school management; (3) curriculum, including
pedagogy; (4) language of instruction; (5) learning resources; (6) relation-
ship with the community. Elsewhere in the same UNICEF document other
elements are added to this list: (7) recruitment and training of teachers (use
of “para-teachers” with short initial training combined with ongoing super-
vision); (8) catchment areas for schools; (9) limited capital costs. The key
words are flexibility, learner-centeredness, community participation, partner-
ships, low-cost (Ibidem: 12/3).
The UNICEF dossier recognised the coexistence of three strands of
“arrangements” in primary education: the regular school system, traditional
indigenous systems, and “non conventional” programmes (i.e. NFE). It saw
these strands as elements integrated in a unified system, within which linkages
would be established in terms of complementarity, mutual exchange, and
mobility between them. In fact, the dossier maintained, there had already been
a dissemination of good (NFE) practices within the school system: “many of
these reforms have been inspired or become acceptable and possible as a
result of the legitimacy of change and innovation spawned by NFE practices
and research” (ibidem: 3–4). The document argues that NFE has a great
potential to trigger more innovations in the public primary system.
The above statements mark a strong position by an international agency
regarding the equivalence of different arrangements for primary education,
and of the value of interactions between them. The recognition of NFE as an
“approach” constitutes a major step forward in promoting the restructuring
of “regular” primary schools. 2 However, there is as yet little evidence that
NFE features, as outlined above, have been introduced into formal primary
education on a significant scale, nor that such reforms to the extent they
materialised were a direct consequence of the influence of NFE. Even more
problematic is that no strong debates appear to have been generated that could
lay the groundwork for such reforms.
An interesting exception that merits continued scrutiny is the process of
policy review in Mali, where NGO-driven NFE provisions like the “village/
 13

community schools”, while initially separate from the state, have influenced
national debates on an integrated system of basic education. NFE experi-
ences appear to have contributed strongly to the empowerment of local com-
munities in their relation with the state and to the foregrounding of the
questions of culture and language in the development of a new national
education system (Boukary 1998).

The progress of international orthodoxy

Given the above statements on the precarious position of NFE it is important

to examine how NFE has been addressed by international agencies, once they
became more strongly involved in basic education as from the world confer-
ence at Jomtien. We shall refer here to official documents produced in the
context of several world conferences, viz.: Jomtien (1990), Amman (1996),
and Hamburg (1997).
The Jomtien Conference was unequivocal in its acknowledgement of the
centrality of formal primary education. Moreover, in the World Declaration
“primary education” was considered identical to “primary schooling”. That
type of education was given the responsibility of meeting basic learning needs
of all children. “Supplementary alternative” programmes could help to meet
learning needs of children with limited or no access to formal schooling,
“provided they share the same standards of learning applied to schools and
are adequately supported” (Inter-Agency Commission 1990: 46). The nature
of the linkages between the “alternatives” and the school system was not dwelt
upon. Thus “alternatives” for primary schooling were acceptable, but they did
not have the same value even if they would meet the conditions. It was clear
that this formal position would have implications for the support to a broader
notion of basic education and for the image of non-school types of learning
(Odora 1996: 7), and ipso facto for the perceptions as to what could be learned
through these.
Significantly, the Jomtien documents make a distinction between supple-
mentary programmes for “children” at the primary education level and those
for “youth and adults”. While the former are implicitly presented as emer-
gency provisions filling a gap where primary schooling did not reach, the latter
are recognised as a separate education category offering various “delivery
systems for meeting ‘diverse’ learning needs” (Inter-Agency Commission:
1990: 46). In other words: NFE only has a truly legitimate status in the area
of post-primary education and in adult education, i.e. the “supplementary”
category (see p. 4). Thus while Jomtien propagated a broader “systemic” view
of basic education, it had difficulties in acknowledging the hard realities of
the limited spread of the conventional type of primary schooing and of the
compensatory efforts that were being made. It is likely that in defining the
“expanded” vision any critical understanding of the systematic malfunctions
in the system was overshadowed by negotiated compromises over its repre-
sentation.
14

As regards possible innovative aspects of formal education, the Jomtien

documents restrict themselves to a number of core concepts, whose detailing
would obviously need to vary from one region to another. They comprise
notions of all inclusiveness of access and participation, primary education as
a basis for life-long learning, recognition of “basic learning needs”, the
recognition of the “cultural, linguistic and spiritual heritage”, and the focus
on learning acquisition. These notions are certainly associated with the NFE
tradition, even though it cannot automatically be assumed that they have been
borrowed from there. Jomtien does not refer to an “NFE experience”, nor to
specific NFE innovations that dramatically could help improve efficiency
and effectiveness in primary schooling.
By the time of the Mid-Decade Review in Amman (1996) it was evident
that with the conventional school as reference point towards achieving the
Jomtien targets not much progress could be made. Official figures, produced
for the Africa regional review seminars, showed that the net enrollment in
primary education in Sub-Saharan Africa only rose by two percentage points
(from 58.5% to 60.8%) over the five years since Jomtien in spite of the fact
that more than 10 million additional school places had been created. Gross
enrollment even declined in the same period. Worse than this was that the
gender gap in net enrollment over the period had actually widened by 1.5%.
Not helpful either was the conclusion that the estimate for the African out-
of-school youth population by 2000 will have risen to 60 million and that
during the 1990s the unschooled and illiterate youths had still largely been
forgotten in educational programmes (Mid-Decade Review of Progress 1996).
In spite of the clear indications that universal basic education in the fore-
seeable future was not going to be achieved through conventional schooling,
not even if “compensatory” provisions of whatever standard would be included
in the counting, Amman essentially affirmed the “correctness” of the path
towards EFA that was already being followed. Moreover, there was no
dramatic new position as regards NFE: while the absence of “bridges and
synergies” between formal education and NFE was recognised as a problem,
the main recommendation was to reconfirm NFE as an “integral” part of the
“education system”. No guidelines were,however, recommended as to how
to promote such integration (Education for All 1996: 37).
Thus Amman did not succeed in taking the systemic view of education
forward by adopting clearer positions on the relative value of various delivery
mechanisms, whether at primary level or thereafter. Although since the days
of Coombs the notion of building “ladders and bridges” had been mooted
many times and a variety of countries had started taking steps in this
direction, formal policy positions reflected no progress in terms of giving such
“systemic” views a more tangible interpretation. Consequently one is bound
to conclude that in the international arena there is a serious reluctance to
consider touching the essence of the schooling system as we know it.
Amman did, however, pay particular attention to the need to revisit the
content of learning. Given the trends of local and global changes it empha-
 15

sised the need for “cross-cultural” learning, the role of the mother tongue in
initial instruction, the need for new learning to cope with rapidly changing
environments, and the emphasis on social cohesion, democracy and conflict
prevention. Moreover extra attention was given to flexible approaches to boost
the participation of girls (Ibidem: 10 and 38/39).
The notion of “links” between formal and nonformal education came back
in the discussions during the Adult Education Conference in Hamburg
(CONFINTEA V). Recognition is given to different “subsystems” of learning
which need stronger links with one another. This is to be achieved through
“ladders and bridges” from initial formal education to continuing education,
and between formal and nonformal education (UIE 1997a). Particularly there
is attention to the central role of “lifelong learning” (LLL), which is seen as
an integrative principle that can help eliminate existing barriers and give
concrete meaning to issues of complementarity and continuity in education
from the perspective of the individual and society (UIE 1997b). Conceptually,
therefore, Hamburg has marked important progress towards systems integra-
tion as it explicitly brought different dimensions of learning together within
an overall LLL frame: such as diversification of delivery, flexibility of pro-
vision, diversity of languages and cultures, learner-centred strategies, use of
traditional media en modern technologies.3
Preliminary documents were even more clear on the principle of integra-
tion. In an analysis of a UNESCO survey of adult education practices around
the world, reference was made to a trend of

“greater alignment of programmes for adults with those for children by means of
the formal education system.” But while it was noted that “since Jomtien the
structural links between the two subsystems have taken clearer shape. . .” it was
also conceded that “in most cases these links are weak, and purely formal, if only
because there are few bridges between the two levels; complementary between the
two subsystems goes rarely as far as integration . . .” (UNESCO 1997: 21)

This issue was explicitly taken up inthe Africa Declaration, adopted in Dakar
(October 1996), which referred to the need to “set up ample and varied systems
for ratifying and recognising knowledge acquired through different channels
and create the necessary means to bridge the gap between formal and non-
formal systems and the various forms of adult learning” (UIE 1997c: 20 –
emphasis mine).
The more holistic perspective of learning within the broad notion of LLL,
which CONFINTEA represented, can provide a suitable basis for systemati-
cally addressing the structural dimensions of systems “integration”, including
those aspects that pertain to the relationships between formal primary
schooling and its nonformal “alternatives”. Although Hamburg did not take
the structural agenda further, it has shown that the conceptual ingredients for
such an agenda are in place.
16

Distance education and open learning

From the perspective of an agenda for the restructuring of schooling, distance

education (DE) and open learning (OL) can be discussed together as they have
important common elements and are often used interchangeably. Nevertheless,
as will be seen, the concept of “open learning” has wider connotations than
DE and, along with the notion of “lifelong learning”, has a potential for basic
education that is still in an infant stage of being fully explored.

Distance education and the primary school

During the last 20 years DE has gained in importance as a cost-effective means

to improve access and quality in education at all levels. It has therefore become
recognized throughout the developing world as a legitimate policy option for
formal school systems (Nettleton 1991: 102). In Africa it has particularly
become acceptable as an alternative to regular education delivery at secondary
and higher levels of education when the need for rapid expansion began to
outstrip the resources available. This led to experiments with “open secondary
schools”, correspondence programmes, etc. (Dodds 1994).
It is recognised that DE has been least often attempted at primary level.
This is attributed to the importance of the socialisation role of education at
this level, the need for greater supervision, and the complexity of designing
appropriate materials for children (Nettleton op. cit.: 103). Nevertheless,
during the 1980s two types of programmes emerged which were carried out
with some degree of success: (1) in-school programmes of “interactive radio
instruction” (IRI); and (2) programmes of educational radio as an outreach
facility for out-of-school youth. The first type usually involves short radio
lessons, which are highly interactive in that learners are continuously prompted
to respond in various ways. The second involves one or more hours of
listening followed by group work led by para-professionals (Nielsen 1991:
125/126).
Anzalone (1991: 45) identified three ways of using instructional radio in
(primary) school education:
A. Supplementary: to improve quality for adding to regular school instruc-
tion in existing subjects or by enriching the curriculum in subjects
otherwise difficult to teach.
B. Stand alone direct teaching: to improve effectiveness and “appeal” by
substituting for underqualified teachers.
C. Complementary: to complement conventional instruction in particular
subjects by using radio to support specific instructional objectives.
It appears that in Africa there is no evidence of radio schools for out-of-
school youth, while IRI within schools has been piloted in various countries
(such as in Kenya and Lesotho for English language, and presently in the
Portuguese-speaking countries for Portuguese and maths). But in the in-school
 17

situation radio has mostly been used as an optional supplement to conven-

tional lessons by “recreating the talking teacher format” (Anzalone op. cit.:
43). Thus it temporarily substitutes for the class teacher by providing a “better”
version which uses a more learner-centred approach and offers a more
structured learning sequence. In other respects, however, IRI adjusts to existing
educational arrangements as it is based on the existing curriculum, its
structure and objectives, and on the prevailing relations of learning in the
classroom, with the difference that IRI may well improve their effectiveness.
The latter led Anzalone to recommend to the World Bank that the efficiency
and cost-effectiveness objectives of IRI should be pursued. Its strength was
that it can

“maintain ‘constant quality’ as expenditures are lowered, or kept at existing levels

even as expansion occurs in the size of the educational system”. Therefore “as a
possible means of responding to the current crisis by rising demand and shrinking
resources, this might well prove to be an important option for the future. In-school
radio education might be made to provide the same economic advantages that some
believe can only be achieved through distance education” (Anzalone 1991: 46)

However, efficiency and effectiveness issues are only one part of the story.
In a paper for IDRC as an input into the Jomtien Conference Nielsen produced
an analysis of the experience with DE, which also explored issues in the social,
cultural, professional and other fields relevant for as assessment of the overall
value of DE. He concluded that the following points could have a bearing on
the potential contribution of DE to a restructuring of primary schooling:
• The emphasis of “classical” DE on mass production of learning and on
delivery of a curriculum in digestible chunks of information for learner
consumption led to insufficient attention to the human interaction dimen-
sion of learning and the social construction of knowledge.
• There is little space for relating learning to the local context and orientating
activities towards cultivating a disposition and competencies for social
change.
• DE is based on a value system that is individualistic and attaches great
importance to the written word; thus it is often culturally alien to local
traditions of communalism and oral interaction; this effect is only strength-
ened by the use of a foreign language of communication.
• DE programmes do not have the same status as conventional ones, as they
deviate from prevailing conceptions as to what education is all about.
• Teachers often fear being displaced by externally produced media leaving
them in a very subservient position, resulting in progressive “de-profes-
sionalisation”.
• DE programmes tend to be developed outside the mainstream education
management network, and thus have problems when it comes to their
institutionalisation and the soliciting of routine financial support (Nielsen
1991: 136/139).
18

The list can be supplemented by another point, based on experiences in

Zimbabwe:
• Many young people are insufficiently motivated or trained for autonomous
learning which is a pre-condition for successful participation in DE
(Gundani 1992: 3/4).
Some of the above points are more applicable to the separate DE pro-
grammes for out-of-school youth than for the in-school supplementary modes.
Yet, both types have suffered from being regarded as “stop gap” measures,
the need for which would disappear once teachers were sufficiently qualified
to handle learner-centred methodologies or once sufficient numbers of con-
ventional school places would have been created. Thus DE programmes
generally did not have a long life and rarely survived once the original goal
for which they were established had been achieved (Nielsen op. cit.: 144). In
fact a major problem for DE has been the apparent lack of strategic planning
in the use of DE for classroom instruction based on a clear view of how it
fits within an overall programme of educational change and development
(Ibidem: 146).

Towards an open learning approach

While DE specialists often use “open learning” (OL) in the same breath as
they use “distance education”, there is a widely held alternative and more
progressive interpretation of OL which holds that OL is all about removing
“unnecessary barriers” to learning and about an opening of learning oppor-
tunities by adopting a flexible approach to key dimensions like time, place,
pace, enrollment, accreditation, etc. In this sense OL has become an umbrella
term that covers a wide variety of provisions combining different aspects of
“openness”.
It is also clear that the principle of “opening” schools has a long history –
with concepts such as “open education”, “open teachers”, “open schools”, and
the like – in which it has been applied to different aspects of education,
particularly to pedagogical practices and the organisation of learning,
emphasizing the self-development of children through dialogue with teacher-
facilitators.
The alternative notion of OL is associated with access to learning, diver-
sity of learning needs and effectiveness of learning, all with special relevance
for non-traditional learners from marginalised communities. The definition
used in South Africa seems representative: OL

describes an approach to education which seeks to increase access to educational

opportunities by removing all unnecessary barriers to learning. At the same time,
it aims to provide learners with a reasonable chance of success in an education
and training system centred on their specific needs and located in multiple arenas
of learning. (South Africa 1996).
 19

The same source formulates key concepts of OL as follows:

learner centredness
lifelong learning
flexibility in learning
removal of all unnecessary barriers to access
recognition of prior learning and experience
accumulation of credits within and across contexts
learner support
expectation of success
quality learning

OL accepts that distance education methods of provision have a very impor-

tant place in promoting the above principles. But it has a wider agenda in
promoting greater openness and effectiveness in all institutions of learning,
including those for DE. This implies using “mixed-mode” approaches whereby
“traditional” forms of education are mixed with “distance” forms. Where
appropriate use is made of emerging technologies like electronic media and
telecommunications. In the process of distinction between distance learning
and conventional learning has begun to disappear. This is particularly the case
in further and higher education, and in the training of teachers (Nielsen op.
cit.; Thorpe and Grugeon 1994; Rumble 1994). Gradually, however, the prin-
ciples are also filtering down towards adult education and school education.
Anzalone maintains that OL is very much applicable to the primary school
environment: opening it to improve quality, to enhance access and equity, to
expand the range of resources, and to provide stronger learning control, all
without diminishing the important social functions of schooling (Anzalone
1997).
Reviewing developments in OL it is helpful to distinguish between three
perspectives in the current discourse as it relates to basic education for young
people:
– A systems perspective
This looks at OL for basic education in its entirety (formal, nonformal, etc.)
and concludes that there is problem of the insufficiency and inadequacy
of the formal schooling system, which is increasingly unable to respond
to the rising demand for learning. Thus there is a need to explore new and
complementary routes to learning outside the conventional system. The new
opportunities should be found, to the extent possible, in the extended use
of media and new information and communication technologies. The latter
should in particular be made available to the marginalised and disadvan-
taged categories of the world’s population. There is often a hope that
engagement in open learning strategies will lead to a rethinking of the role
of education in society and a new understanding of socio-cognitive
processes, and thus to a reform of conventional education.
20

– A technological perspective
This perspective is primarily interested in promoting the expansion of
computer-based, multimedia, interactive technologies for teaching and
learning, whether it is in conventional institutions or in institutions for
distance learning, and even at the level of basic education for young people.
Open learning here is equated with technological innovation. The equation
has opened up visions of an information society in which everybody learns,
but in which also large profits can be made by providers and manufacturers
(Thorpe and Grugeon 1994: xiv/xvi).
– A programme perspective
This perspective takes a more holistic view of learning needs and learning
opportunities at institutional and programme level, both within formal and
nonformal education. It posits that the separation of traditional and distance
education has been created and maintained through historical circumstances,
but has now outlived its justification. While DE is shifting to include
features of conventional learning by promoting interaction between
educators and learners and learners among themselves (“taking the distance
out of distance learning”), conventional education increasingly reverts to
utilisation of media and new technologies complementary to traditional
contact teaching. Thus typologies are changing as “dual mode” and “mixed
mode” institutions become more common.

The policy view of distance education and open learning

To what extent have these developments been taken on board in the interna-
tional policy debates on basic education? A review of documents shows that
DE and OL have been more esoteric pre-occupations than NFE. The lobby
for DE has clearly been smaller than the one for NFE, while the one for OL,
particularly in the “programme perspective”, is very dispersed.
The Jomtien documents make no reference to DE as a particular mode of
delivery for primary or adult education, while a notion of open learning lies
at the heart of the endorsement of the value of informal education to inform
and educate people on social issues (Inter-Agency Commission 1990: 46 and
56). Although by the time the Conference took place a good bit of evidence
about DE practices had been available (see Nielsen op. cit.), DE does not
feature in discussions on modes of delivery for formal or nonformal educa-
tion, nor on measures for quality improvement. Nevertheless, Jomtien recog-
nised the need to keep a tab on emerging technologies, as their suitability for
the education process was deemed to change rapidly over time (Inter-Agency
Commission: 57).
The interest was somewhat different at the Amman mid-decade review, par-
ticularly with respect to implicit attention to principles of OL. The Final
Report noted that “the use of media for educational purposes has lived up only
modestly to the challenges set forth in the Jomtien declaration” and warned
 21

that “in too many countries the potential of the media goes largely untapped”
(Education for All 1996: 27). More attention was called for the role of the
new technologies and the need to close the gap between countries benefiting
from the communications revolution and those that did not. New approaches
and strategies were needed to bring education within reach of all. A com-
prehensive effort to this effect would need to be based on the best available
expertise and technology. But the Affirmation also emphasized that “while we
must make better and wider use of technology and media, they can comple-
ment, but never replace the essential role of the teacher as the organiser of
the instructional process” (Ibidem: 11).
The Hamburg Declaration on Adult Learning, as indicated above, took a
broad view of learning and the range of opportunities available for promoting
it. In fact, Hamburg through its promotion of lifelong learning underscored
the importance of open learning as a basis for improving access, flexibility
and learner-centredness. Both traditional and modern media need to become
accessible to adult learners wherever they are and for any purpose. In the
Agenda for the Future one article was devoted to the media and ICT, stating
that better synergies are needed between media, information technologies
and adult learning, by “ensuring equal access and sustainability of open and
distance learning systems, the media, and the new information and commu-
nication technologies, and by using new technologies to explore alternative
ways of learning” (UNESCO 1997). The question is: what is applicable to
adult learners, to what extent can its relevance be extended to education for
young people?

Towards an integrative approach

In this section we need to pull the different strands together, and consider to
what extent the different approaches to education and their experiences can
add up to an adequate framework for a structural reform of education.

A comparison of conceptual ingredients

As regards the conceptual elements of nonformal education and distance

education there are various similarities and differences. Their actual presence
may vary considerably, so that generalisations are difficult to make. The
common features are summarised in the table below, which follows areas of
attention based on points of critique levelled at the formal school.
A scrutiny of the table shows that the two approaches share several basic
principles, which are in the areas of accessibility, the importance of responding
to individual learning needs, the notion of “learner-centredness”, the notion
of relevance of what is learned, the importance of organisational flexibility,
the acceptance of accountability and autonomy and control for the beneficia-
22
Area of attention Nonformal education
All-inclusiveness of Focuses mostly on
participation disadvantaged children
Connection with Recognises need for
learning in the linkages and some
community complementarity
Responding to different Assumes community role
learning needs in definition
Recognition of diversity Often gives explicit attention
of background and to gender, prior learning and
circumstances socio-economic situation
Relevance of learning Often includes life/
vocational skills, as
defined by participants
and community
Relations of learning Strong personal interactions
between teachers/facilitators
and learners
Focus on learning Teaching/learning styles
often follow conventional
patterns
Structure of provisions Not much attention;
sometimes bridge to
formal school
Flexibility in adapting Basic feature; but decisions
to circumstances are made for all participants
by the programme
Responsiveness and Basic feature; mostly through
accountability formalised direct linkages
Local autonomy and Important principle;
control exercised by community and
NGO’s
Democratic and Exercised collectively by
participatory decision- participants and community
making
Cost-effectiveness More concerned about
social value than about
costs
Distance education
Focuses mostly on the
previously excluded, not
necessarily disadvantaged
No explicit attention
Assumes individual
awareness of needs
Assumes that
circumstances of each
individual are different
Narrow in scope: places
emphasis on individual
choice on basis of
interest
Assumes learning can
be achieved with only
limited direct human
interaction
Move from DE to OL
puts more emphasis on
individual control of
learning
Emphasis on equivalency
Basic feature; based on
individual choice;
increases with more
technological options
Basic feature; through
mechanism of the market
No local interference;
only individual control
Exercised by individual
choice and market
mechanism
Much attention to greater
diversity at lower unit
costs
 23

ries, and the need to improve cost-effectiveness. Both, of course, have also
shared the same fate in that in policy and in practice they have been regarded
as separate and inferior alternatives to formal schooling, and have not been
able to make a serious impact on the reform of the mainstream. At best, in
both cases, elements have been used within primary schools for supplemen-
tary “enrichment” purposes.
Beyond these similarities, however, the approaches reflect rather signifi-
cant differences as to how their principles are to be interpreted in practice.
Here the differences in ideological underpinnings become visible. The NFE
approach attaches high value to mediation of needs, organisational forms,
benefits and control by local structures, representing the “community”. NFE
also has a tradition of displaying a greater sensitivity towards the cultural
dimension of learning and the social objectives of education. The latter is also
reflected in its pedagogical practices which tend to be more group-oriented
with a strong emphasis on personal guidance. Moreover it has a stronger
interest in value of education for local social, cultural and economic devel-
opment.
By contrast, even though the DE approach, influenced by conceptions of
OL, has come to take a broader view of educational provisions and method-
ologies and has accepted the need for greater human interaction, in principle
it displays a fundamental belief in the capacity of individuals to determine
their own future and identify appropriate learning paths, thereby being able
to make judicious choices from among the options available and to sustain a
fairly independent learning experience. DE therefore appeals to young people
who have developed a capacity for autonomous learning. Where DE options
become mixed with conventional education practices this tends to stem less
from social-cultural considerations than from concerns with efficiency and
cost-effectiveness.
Thus it can be concluded that whereas DE principles tends to reflect a
western concern with personal development and individual growth and are
thus associated with a western liberal tradition, NFE, as it has been used as
a substitute for primary schooling in Africa, has a stronger affinity with
communal concerns and social development in the local environment.
Moreover the NFE approach has more to offer to youngsters who are dis-
advantaged not just by being deprived of access to educational opportunities
per se, but also by having their identity and concept of self undermined by
previous marginalisation.
Apart from these differences in “vision”, there are also important man-
agerial and organisational distinctions, such as the greater attention in DE to
the technical quality of learning resources, the monitoring of progress and
achievement, as well as the structural coherence of different learning method-
ologies. On the other hand NFE pays more attention to the substance of
learning and its immediate relevance for the community, and to the social
context within which learning takes place.
Both approaches seem to have problems in addressing the “systemic”
24

dimensions of the provisions, i.e. the ladders and bridges between different
learning paths, or the vertical and horizontal transfers. Moreover, and more
fundamentally, both approaches appear to have difficulties shaping the con-
structivist dimension of learning and the incorporation of pedagogic styles
that promote critical thinking, self-reflection, and a creative reconstruction
of identities, and which move away from the traditional behaviouristic and
programmed forms of learning.
The question is now whether all the above could be harmonised and
crystallised into a conceptual framework for change? Clearly both approaches
have ingredients to offer that point to fundamental educational change. But
it can be argued that many of these are in the practical and technical spheres
and are defined in relation to apparent deficiencies in the formal education
system, proposing practical solutions based on local circumstances or avail-
ability of new technologies. Their promotion is often based on ad hoc con-
siderations which are limited in scope and have little explicit reference to
fundamental parameters of the prevailing education system. They do not have
much internal consistency and coherence, and still have insufficient grounding
in educational theory.

A broader conceptual frame for policy development

The way forward would have to be based on the presumption that the tradi-
tions of NFE and DE can come out of their particularistic closet and engage
in a dialogue directed at constructing a broader conceptual frame for a com-
prehensive and responsive basic education system. Given the mounting
evidence of failures to address both the issues of affordable quantity and
acceptable quality, the writing is now on the wall that sectional interests have
to be overcome so as to prevent losing all credibility to achieve EFA. In a
time for world-wide debate on “lifelong learning” and “open learning” in the
midst of a reality of continued exclusion of large numbers of children for
reasons of poverty, social deprivation, involvement in work, cultural differ-
ences, and often the sheer irrelevancy of what is being offered, the very notion
of compartmentalizing basic education provisions needs to be abandoned.
Instead, the emphasis must be on integration and inclusivity, with sufficient
acknowledgement for flexibility and adaptability to offer opportunities to all
children taking explicit cognizance of circumstances and needs. In this context
what matters is not the territorial delimitation of alternative provisions (NFE,
DE functional literacy and the like), but rather their unique contributions to
an integrated lifelong system of learning opportunities.
Thus, the first challenge is to take a systemic perspective on basic educa-
tion for young people.This means that the potential linkages among the various
“delivery” modes need to be explored so as to activate their comparative
advantages and complementarities for the purpose of meeting diverse learning
needs under different circumstances. In the wake of the Hamburg Conference
a significant step has been taken by making a distinction and complementarity
 25

between “initial education of children” and “further education throughout adult

life” (Belanger, personal communication, 1998). Initial (or basic) education
is regarded as an essential foundation in the context of people’s “learning
biographies”. This assumes the need for sets of essential competences to be
identified that can be acquired by all children in a socially and culturally
appropriate manner regardless of background and circumstances. Such initial
education constitutes a universal entitlement, to be credited within the context
of a broad qualifications framework, operating independently from actual
teaching/learning strategies or locations of learning.
It is in the context of the above frame that the old distinctions between
“formal” and “nonformal” education need to be revisited. If “formal” refers
primarily to the notions of officially recognised creditation and certification
then the common distinctions related to content, organisational arrangements
and location become obsolete unless learning outcomes are not (to be)
honoured under a qualifications framework.
A second challenge is to operationalise the notion of “linkages” that has
been promoted in the context of various international fora. This notion, along
with its corollary of “integration”, needs to be deconstructed so as to develop
a frame for strategic review of formal and nonformal provisions. Linkages
between sub-systems take on different forms if they are to occur within the
context of mere “systemic” integration or if they are constructed within
downstream frames of institutional and programmatic integration. The former
would typically focus on the principles of “equivalency” in outcomes under
an agreed on national framework for creditation, and would moreover attempt
to systematically promote portability of credits and transfer between one mode
of delivery and another (the so-called “ladders and bridges”). In this context
nonformal community schools could be “formalised” by linking them
structurally to other “formal” schools and subjecting them to similar regula-
tions and support services, though preferably with the maintenance of com-
munity involvement. Obviously this agenda would go beyond what has often
been pursued regarding similarities of curriculum or subject content. Real
negotiations between sub-systems would be required where the nonformal
“alternative” has intentionally pursued a different curricular approach, for
example in terms of language of instruction or emphasis on skills training or
the cultural and/or gender dimension of learning.
It is at the levels of institutional and programmatic integration that non-
conventional sub-systems – such as NFE and DE – could potentially have
the greatest impact on a fundamental reform of the “formal” system of edu-
cation. Here one is not dealing anymore with a juxtaposition of autonomous
sub-systems under a common formal umbrella, but rather with linkages that
promote synergies within vital components of the educational process itself,
such as the organisation of learning, pedagogical strategies, and educational
technologies. Potentially such synergies have a significant bearing on the
accessibility of education provisions and on the basic quality and relevance
of what is on offer.
26

Institutional and programmatic integration imply efforts to mainstream

innovations from non-conventional sub-systems. The arguments for such
moves are based on the experiences, reported above, of the limited coverage
of NFE and DE, their often inferior position in the hierarchy of provisions,
and the seemingly poor record of impacting upon the reform of the main-
stream from their separate location in the margins of the education system. It
is thus posited here that if NFE and DE are to have a major impact on
achieving EFA and if their innovative features are to have a significant bearing
on a fundamental reform of the formal schooling system they can only do so
by placing themselves inside the mainstream schooling system and helping
to “open up” the system from within. This means that the attention in NFE
and DE needs to shift from maintaining separate institutional provisions to
becoming approaches for fundamental reform of key dimensions of the formal
system.
The significant features of both have been discussed above. They include
flexibility in organisation and delivery of teaching, efficient utilization of
teacher time and learning “spaces”, the design of multiple learning paths
related to background and circumstances of pupils, the responsiveness to local
socio-cultural and economic needs, the use of alternative resources for learning
including modern technologies, the involvement of local communities and
private sector in management and curriculum implementation; the formation
of partnerships between communities, NGOs and the state; the combination
of academic learning, skills development and work-experience. Collectively
this amounts to pursuing a comprehensive agenda for the promotion of Open
Learning – in its alternative and expanded meaning. Within this agenda both
NFE and DE would have to find their “niche” entry points, developing those
features that provide the best service to the premises upon which a progres-
sive basic education policy needs to be based.
As Paul Bélanger commented: “Initial formal education needs not be at a
distance from local needs, needs not to be deaf to differences among learners,
needs not to ignore experience of learners, needs not to be aloof from local
community life, needs not to be gender insensitive” (Bélanger, personal com-
munication, 1998). A new policy for comprehensive initial education should
be based on a commitment to a transformation that promotes synergies
between conventional formal education and various experiments with NFE,
DE and other relevant approaches, combining the advantages of the former
with the positive experiences of the latter, all in the interest of providing
meaningful learning experiences for everybody.
A final challenge relates to the development of systems for management
and professional support services. What management mechanisms are
appropriate for developing and maintaining an integrated system of provisions
for basic education? How are the partnerships being promoted needed for
policy dialogue and joint planning of implementation? If the fundamental
reform is essentially about improving responsiveness to individual needs, to
communities, to social and economic processes of change, where and how
 27

are the decisions about education provisions and nature of desirable syner-
gies between conventional and non-conventional arrangements going to be
made? What system for guidance and quality assurance will be suitable? What
equitable funding formulae can be devised? Not in the least, how will the
required leadership be developed?
Arguably the major principle that would enable the restructuring of formal
basic education to move forward is the creation of more space: administra-
tive space, intellectual space, social-cultural space. Space is essential for
enhanced national reflection on current policies and practices; it is essential
for contemplating novel and indigenous solutions away from the watchful gaze
of donor agencies; it is essential for the growth of autonomy at institutional
and local education level where increased collective responsibility is a nec-
essary pre-requisite for greater responsiveness to local needs and circum-
stances. Space is also essential for generating research data on linkages as
they evolve, and for increasing visibility of ideas and innovative approaches
that work towards changes in conventional school education, whether for the
benefit of some learners (girls, street children, over-aged, migrant children,
etc.) or all of them, and whether these innovations take place at the level of
schools or that of larger parts of the system. Without space there is no
dialogue, and without dialogue no new policy for basic education can be
constructed.

Notes

1. While the author currently works for the Netherlands Government at its Embassy
in Pretoria, South Africa, he writes in a personal capacity. Therefore the views
expressed here do not necessarily reflect those of the Netherlands Government.
2. There is, however, no evidence that UNICEF ever officially adopted the positions
taken in this document. They certainly did not find their way into the Amman
discussions.
3. The LLL frame has of course not only a “horizontal” significance (i.e. for the
systemic integration of different modalities for learning at a particular level), it
has also a “vertical” significance (associated with the continuity between educa-
tion for young people and continued education for adults in its various forms).
The latter dimension, however, is not the prime focus of this article.

References
Anzalone, S. 1991. Educational Technology and the Improvement of General
Education in Developing Countries. In: M.E. Lockheed, J. Middleton and G.S.
Nettleton (Eds.), Educational Technology: Sustainable and Effective Use (32–97).
IBRD, PHREE background paper series; no. PHREE/91/32. Washington DC: The
World Bank, 351 p., tab.
———. 1997. Toward Open Learning in Developing Countries: Starting with Schools.
Paper presented to the ICDE Conference on Learning Without Frontiers: Beyond Open
and Distance Learning, June.
28

Berstecher, D. and Carr-Hill, R. 1990. Primary Education and Economic Recession

in the Developing World Since 1980. A Special Study for the World Conference on
Education for All. Paris: UNESCO.
Boukary, H. 1998. The Village Schools of Save the Children/USA in Mali: A Case
Study of NGOs, Communities and the State’s Emerging Roles in the Provision of
Basic education in Sahel. Paper presented at the 10th World Congress of Comparative
Education Societies, Cape Town, South Africa, 12–17 July 1998.
Buchert, L. 1994. Education in the Development of Tanzania, 1919–1990. London:
James Curry.
CONFEMEN. 1995. Basic Education: Toward a New School; Discussion and Policy
Paper. Working Document. Ottawa: CIDA
Coombs, P.H. 1993. New Paths to Learning for Rural Children and Youth. New York:
ICED.
Dodds, T. 1994. Distance Learning for Pre-tertiary Education in Africa. In: M. Thorpe
and D. Grugeon (Eds.), Open Learning in the Mainstream. Longman.
Durston, S. 1996. Increasing Education for All: Community Schools in Zambia. A
Report for the Technical Committee for the Education sector Integrated Programme,
and sponsored by UNICEF. Lusaka.
Education for All, Achieving the Goal. 1996. Final Report of the Mid-Decade Meeting
of the International Consultative Forum on Education for All, 16–19 June 1996,
Amman, Jordan. Paris: UNESCO.
Epstein, I. 1996. Educating Street Children: Some Cross-cultural Perspectives.
Comparative Education 32: 289–302.
Eschobar, Z. 1989. Examples of Special Projects for Out-of-School Chlidren. In: A.M.
Ranaweera (Ed.), Non-conventional Approaches to Education at the Primary Level.
Hamburg: UNESCO Institute for Education.
From Jomtien to the Segou Perspectives. 1995. Launch of the Year of Education in
Africa, 5–7 October 1995, Bamako, Mali.
Gundani, C.M. 1992. Increasing Access and Raising Quality of Secondary Education
Using Distance Teaching Methods. Paper presented at the International Extension
College meeting on ‘World Education Crisis: Roles for Distance Education’,
Cambridge, UK, 20–24 September.
Inter-Agency Commission, WCEFA. 1990. Final Report; World Conference on
Education for All: Meeting Basic Learning Needs, 5–9 March 1990, Jomtien, Thailand.
Jellema, A. and Archer, D. 1997. Critical Reflections on Strategies for Including the
Marginalised in Quality Education. Paper presented to the Oxford Conference,
September.
Ki-Zerbo, J. 1990. Educate or Perish: Africa’s Impasse and Prospects. Paris:
UNESCO.
Mid-Decade Review of Progress towards Education for All. 1996. Policy Review
seminar, East- and Southern Africa, Johannesburg, 20–23 February 1996; Issues Paper
for Discussion, Paris, UNESCO.
 29

Nettleton, G.S. 1991. Uses and Costs of Educational Technology for Distance
Education in Developing Countries: A Review of the Recent Literature. In: M.E.
Lockheed, J. Middleton and G.S. Nettleton (Eds.), Educational Technology:
Sustainable and Effective Use (99–147). IBRD, PHREE Background Paper Series. No.
PHREE/91/32. Washington: The World Bank. 351 p.: tab.
Nielsen, H.D. 1991. Using Distance Education to Extend and Improve Teaching in
Developing Countries. In: IDRC (Ed.), Perspectives on Education for All. IDRC:
Social Sciences Division.
Odaga, A. and Heneveld, W. 1995. Girls and Schools in Sub-Saharan Africa; From
Analysis to Action. World Bank Technical Paper No. 298. Washington: The World
Bank.
Odora Hoppers, C.A. 1996. Alternative Approaches to Education; Paper prepared for
the OAU and Government of Uganda Conference on the Empowermment of Women
through Functional Literacy and Education of the Girl Child, Kampala, Uganda, 8–13
September.
Picciotto, R. 1996. What is Education Worth? From Production Function to
Institutional Capital. Human Capital Development Working papers, 75. Washington:
The World Bank. November.
Rumble, G. 1994. Mixed Modes of Teaching and Learning; Structures, Resources, and
Development. In: M. Thorpe and D. Grugeon (Eds.), Open Learning in the
Mainstream. Longman.
South Africa, Department of Education. 1996. The National Open Learning Agency,
A Concept Paper. Pretoria, Draft, March.
Thorpe, M. and Grugeon, D. (Eds.). 1994. Open Learning in the Mainstream.
Longman.
UIE/UNESCO Institute for Education. 1997a. Fifth International Conference on Adult
Education (CONFINTEA V): The Agenda for the Future. Hamburg, UIE.
———. 1997b. Fifth International Conference on Adult Education (CONFINTEA V):
The Hamburg Declaration on Adult Learning. Hamburg, UIE.
———. 1997c. Months of Debate; Six Preparatory Meetings for the Fith International
Conference on Adult Education. Hamburg, UIE.
UNESCO. 1997. Adult Education since the Fourth International Conference on Adult
Education (Paris, 1985); Fifth International Conference on Adult Education. Paris,
UNESCO (mimeo).
UNICEF. 1993. Reaching the Unreached; Nonformal Approaches and Universal
Primary Education; Dossier prepared by UNICEF by Rosa Maria Torres. New York:
UNICEF, Education Cluster.

The author

Wim Hoppers has been a senior researcher at the Centre for the Study of Education
in Developing Countries (CESO), The Hague, Netherlands. He has worked as a
researcher, consultant and programme coordinator in Zambia and throughout East-
and Southern Africa. Over the years he has become much involved in policy and
30

programme development related to vocational education and training, and to decen-

tralised support structures for teachers and schools. He has written widely on these
issues, and was among others co-editor of the book Beyond Jomtien; Implementing
Primary Education for All (Macmillan, 1994) and the author of Searching for
Relevance: The Development of Work Orientation in Basic Education (UNESCO: IIEP,
1996). In the early 1990s he took up the position of regional education advisor for
the Netherlands Government in Harare, Zimbabwe, and is now working in the same
capacity in Pretoria, South Africa. In the course of this work he started devoting time
to exploring the potential of open learning for the reform of basic education.
Contact address: Dr Wim H.M.L. Hoppers, Royal Netherlands Embassy, P.O. Box
117, Pretoria 0001, South Africa. E-mail: hoppodor@iafrica.com.