This is S6246h by FFLH/ http://www.fflh.no/dialog/S6246h-empowering∞ teachers.doc
Submitted for possible publication in an antology of NUFU-projects
Confer:

Empowering teachers through action research: Addressing quality of education in Ethiopia.
Dr. Tove Nagel, special adviser, Save the Children Norway, (SCN)

Background
A growing number of international and national investigations find that school drop-out in developing countries is generally high and children’s learning outcome is poor. It is more likely that they often are two sides of a coin. However, few have gone to the trouble of investigating how classroom practices contribute to low quality or drop-out. The first international comparative data on quality were the SACMEQ studies. Data from countries in Southern Africa were first published at the Dakar conference. The alarming results found in this comparative study put quality of education onto the public agenda for the first time and in the EFA declaration. However, no recommendations or analyses were made as to how to tackle the quality issues.

The first major, cross-country evaluation of SCN education work took place in 1999/2000. Few lasting changes in classroom interaction and teaching were found, except for a decrease in physical punishment. (Johannesen, E. M. 2001). As a newly employed education adviser in SCN, I was given the task to suggest an alternative approach to improve quality in education, and to design a project to be piloted across some of the countries where SCN is working. Ethiopia, Zambia, Mozambique and Zimbabwe opted to join the project. Education staff members from 8 other countries have also participated to learn and become motivated to address quality in their own programmes. Ethiopia, as the first, started out in October 2002, others following suit in the coming years.

In 2003, with the support from Norad, SCN organized an international conference on quality education,( http: reddbarna.no/edu) in an effort to advocate for and alert partner Government officials in the South about the seriousness of the situation. The reason why learning outcomes seem to be generally low in many developing countries, is often not known or understood, neither by authorities, nor by the general public.

What is quality of education?
No unanimous definition of quality in education exists. Since Dakar, the issue of educational quality has slowly crept into the international debate on education again, after about 30 years of absence. Forty years ago, UNESCO’s International Institute for Educational Planning, IIEP, raised the issue of educational quality in an international conference where C.E. Beeby (1966, 1969) and Peters R.S. (1967, 1969) elaborated on the concept of educational quality.In hindsight, it seems, not with too strong repercussions on government and donor practises. The discussion faded away.

In present day educational discourse, a system’s approach to education and quality dominates. The biggest international education and development organizations contend that quality education is that of a “system running smoothly”. This metaphor is based on the notion of education as a system composed of multiple interacting factors affecting and distorting the quality of education. The association to technical efficiency and machinery comes close to mind.

UNICEF’s broad definition of educational quality identifies five factors which must have quality for the end-result to be quality education. They define quality education to consist of: 1) healthy and well-nourished learners who are ready to learn, 2) healthy safe, protective and gender-sensitive environments and 3) relevant contents to be expressed in curricula, - to 4) processes where trained teachers use child-centred methods which eventually will safeguard quality 5) outcomes .(UNICEF: Quality Education Consultation, (New York) Oct 2000).

This looks very much like a tautology. If negated, let’s say with either unhealthy and hungry children, disabled, or traumatised children who are either not motivated or able to learn, education is bound to fail; we cannot get quality. Is this true? UNESCO takes the same approach. This is what we find:

“Defining the quality of education is not easy. However, one framework which can help is shown in Table 2.14. In this input-process-output framework, the various stakeholders in education (learners, parents, teachers, communities, government) and the various levels (classroom, school, national policy) find their places….” ( EFA Global Monitoring report 2002 (UNESCO) p.81)

The idea in both these definitions of education and quality is that when ALL factors have quality and interact the way they are supposed to, the eventual result will be QUALITY.
A definition of education which sees education as a system, and which defines education as having quality when all its composite parts are running smoothly together, is one based on technological rationality.

The German social philosopher, Jürgen Habermas (1986) criticizes this type of rationality for being underpinned by a technological bias, which has as a result that people as independent actors, culture, thinking, language and values become invisible and tend to disappear. But even more serious is his criticism of system rationality for its ability to “colonize life-worlds”. We do not see outside of the system parameters! The consequences of such an approach for the definition of quality education have serious repercussion on practice. (Nørager, 1987). What is missing, are the living people and their activities; children and teachers in the everyday school reality.

So, where do we start to improve the quality of education? This prompts another question: “Where and how is educational quality constituted?” In more modern school buildings? In up-to-date, relevant and modern high quality textbooks? In efficient administration? In high quality syllabi and curricula?

It is in the pedagogical meeting between the teacher, student and content that quality is constituted. This meeting must have such a character that it “vibrates with energy”, to such an extent so that those involved are absorbed in what they are talking about or are doing. (Nagel, 1992)

In my doctoral work exploring quality of education in Zimbabwe, I found that curricula and formal requirements were up-dated and fine. Classroom practice, however was quite another issue. It was still mostly traditional, repetitious and extremely teacher-centered, the way it used to be in Norway earlier on. The one-way communication in teaching I observed in more than 200 classrooms and 9 teacher training colleges was generally performed at very low cognitive levels, mostly recall and reference to memory. Ana-lytical, evaluative, synthesising or problematising statements were few and with some teachers totally missing. One-way low level communication is a very unhappy combination for students’ cognitive development and learning. In my work as an educational adviser in SCN across a number of other countries, cultures and continents this general finding about teaching has been corroborated. Besides, a technological view of education overlooks the cultural underpinnings of such practices, with reference to traditional values like power and authority, patriarchy and female and child submissiveness. In my experience I have also found that what makes children and teachers “vibrate” may differ according to culture and expectations.

The Quality Education Project
was set up in close cooperation with the Ministry of Education in North Gonder zone, Amhara region in Ethiopia, towards the end of 2002. SCN has been working in Ethiopia since 1969, and in this particular geographical area since 1995. This has given SCN trust and credit, both with the Government, the Regional Government as well as with local partners. From 1998 SCN has worked with community school construction and the development of an Alternative Basic education model for children out of school, now adapted as the alternative education model throughout the country. Gonder College of Education has been a partner for 10 years, and a discussion about the quality problems in education with the Principal, some 8 years ago, lead to further co-operation in a pilot directed at raising teacher awareness and reflectivity in order to boost educational quality at classroom level.

Prior to this I had worked for SIDA and the Ministry of Education in Laos to introduce action research to teacher educators in Laos in order to address serious quality problems in the country (Nagel, T. and Stephens, D. 2001). Experiences from this work fed into the design of QEP in Ehtiopia. In Laos the Ministry was reluctant to let teacher educators relate to primary schools in their action research projects, since according to the Australian model of action research, that they knew, normally, the objective of introducing action research in education, is to make practitioners investigate and reflect on THEIR OWN practice and as a result changing it. (McTaggart, 1997, Carr and Kemmis, 1986).

In Laos we found that introducing self-reflection was very hard for the lecturers, since it negates all their cultural beliefs and practices, as well as being very alien to traditional cultural values of communality and subordination to authorities. Critical reflection turned out to be a totally new concept to them. As a result of this experience we started the project in Ethiopia by letting lecturers and teachers observe others at the beginning of the project, before turning their scrutiny towards themselves. That turned out to be a lucky strike.

Why action research?
Action research is not new. It was initiated in the 1940ies and 50ies by Kurt Lewin and John Collier who addressed social problems related to minority populations in the US. In education action research involving children to make classrooms more democratic was tried out by Corey, S and Foshay. A in the US. In the UK action research was applied in curriculum development with teachers in the 70ies Lawrence Stenhouse, John Elliot and Clem Adelman. (Elliot, J. 1991) Carr, Kemmis and Mc Taggart have developed an Australian ”Participatory action research” model, where empowerment and emancipation are seen as important objectives of the process. Self-reflection has moved to the forefront in this approach. Action Research has been defined as,

’a participatory, democratic process concerned with developing practical knowing in the pursuit of worthwhile human purposes, grounded in a participatory worldview which…. is emerging at this historical moment. It seeks to bring together action and reflection, theory and practice, in participation with others, in the pursuit of practical solutions to issues of pressing concern to people, and more generally the flourishing of individual persons and their communities’ (Reason. P & Bradbury, 2001).

PAR, participatory action research in many ways, goes further in its overtly ideological and personal character. Three leading proponents capture this well:

“Participatory research proposes returning to ordinary people the power to participate in knowledge creation, the power that results from such participation, and the power to utilize knowledge…. A deep and abiding belief in people’s capacity to grow, change, and create underlies this democratisation of research” (Hall, 1979, pp 24-32)

Action research in education underpin both what has been called the “Teacher as researcher” tradition to change as well as the “Reflective teaching” tradition (Zeichner and Liston, 1996). While it has been broadly adapted in the West, it has no long history in institutions in the South.

What does QEP do?
The project offers teachers, teacher educators and inspectors training in qualitative research methods and action research. The choice of addressing more levels in education is two fold; first it is to achieve a system effect in a long term perspective, secondly; teacher educators are the trainers and monitors for all the teachers involved in the project.

At the beginning teacher educators practice the knowledge acquired through the training in systematic and regular observations in schools. The project prompts reflection by the participants about the problems they identify. All participants are required to carry out systematic investigations about problems they have identified in their own classroom. Solutions will be suggested by themselves and tried out according to the steps in the action research model.

The fundamental thinking behind the project, contrary to common approaches to address the quality of education, is that people should have to identify the problems in education by themselves and not be told by others “what is wrong with them”. The common approach to mending quality education, “delivering training identified as gaps by outsiders”, no matter how well meant, is prone to develop resistance by the target group. This approach is probably the reason why so much short time trainings seem to be totally wasted, since participants have not acknowledged the need for such training. This was also the finding of SCN’s first thematic evaluation of education work, demonstrating no lasting changes in classroom interaction and teaching behaviour, in spite of trainings offered.

Documenting changes in teachers and children
In February 2008 a group of QEP trainers/mentors from other countries started documenting results found in teachers involved in the Ethiopian schools. Knowledge of action research and training levels of teachers still vary widely across the 10 main schools and its satellites involved in the project, due to high turn over of teachers, lecturers and different time of entry into the project. But we found that teachers themselves introduce and train new teachers in QEP methodology on their own initiative. 75 teachers were interviewed by 10 people in Focus Group interviews for two days. 18 teachers were interviewed by two researchers in-depth during the following a week, building on the findings from the FGIs. The responses received across different schools and different people were all indicating interesting and very similar changes. Due to researcher and method triangulation one could argue for convergent validity of findings.

Initially 11 + 20 lecturers from the college were trained. These take over the training and monitoring responsibilities of the teachers. After 5 years, 17 are left, others having been deployed to new jobs in other locations or pursue their higher education elsewhere.

Observation of colleagues prompts self-reflection
Changes in teachers’ thinking and behaviour were evident more quickly and readily than with lecturers/ teacher educators. This is a finding across all the countries involved in QEP. Status seems to be a hindrance for self reflection and admittance of own short-comings. Already at the first encounter with teachers we were very surprised at their receptivity. As all trainings are a combination of practice and theory, teachers did observation in surrounding schools. Two or three of the young female teachers returned back and stated: “I didn’t know this is the way I teach!” The experience had made a deep impact on many of them. And they were not always happy with what they saw. One old teacher said: Before I was blind, no I see!” Observations are usually discussed in groups.

Teachers and lecturers all say that observing others has been the most important impetus for change. Statements like : ”by observing others, I see myself.” “I thought that if others do such things, I can also do it.” “Before we were practicing negative things. We were externalizing, we used corporal punishment, like kneel down (forcing student to kneel on pebbles). Starting from QEP: It helped us to observe ourselves and not blaming others. It is from that onwards that we started to think about children’s learning and our own role. QEP has created me. Even if we are few left in this school.” (Female teachers, 26 years old. Diploma in ed. 3 years of involvement in QEP)

Others say that with the opportunity to observe others they now know that most teachers are also having the same problems. “I am not afraid of welcoming anybody into my class. Through observation I have seen other teachers having the same problems. Anybody can come and visit me!” (Male teacher, 50 years, 30 years of practice, 4 years in QEP)

Observation and professional discussions lead to self-reflection and change
In the discussions teacher hold after observations they learn to reflect upon what they have seen. They also learn to “take the problem home” and not to externalize. “What about myself, what do I do? What is my role and how do I tackle similar situations that I have observed?” Other teachers therefore refer to the combination of training and observations, and of collaborative discussions with colleagues when asked what has been useful for them. This is how one female teacher describes her experiences with QEP: “The whole training has been important. It has made me become aware of my own teaching. That change occurred through observation and practice. During my observation of other teachers I became suspicious about my own teaching. Students’ lack of participation and the shouting and activities of teachers made me very uncomfortable. I decided that unless this is resolved in my own teaching also, I am not doing the right thing.” (Female teacher, 42 years, 26 years of service, 3 years in QEP)

Participatory investigations develop schools as professional organizations and lead to more inclusive practices
In in-depth interviews we tried to come to grasp with what is particularly important in promoting change: “I observed that there were very few students who were actively involved in the learning. This made me very surprised. - I woke up. The females were dominated by the males. This pertained both to small and big children. Females were always pushed aside. I decided that unless this is corrected there will be no development. (Female teacher, (36), 16 years of experience, 4 years in QEP) This teacher said that she too, had been married away at the age of 7, and since early marriages is a common practice in this area, she says she is actively engaged in convincing parents to let the girls finish their education instead of marrying them away, and that she is successful to include these girls in education.

There is no doubt that the project has contributed to the professionalization of teachers and lecturers. Interviewers were astonished as to the degree of change in attitudes and strengthening of professional identity that teachers report. The general picture is that teachers claim to a professional and moral awakening, due to the project. One teacher said: “ I now can see students’ problems from different directions. I have also learnt to think about myself, my methods and my teaching. My relationship with other teachers has changed. We discuss our job. I have developed that thinking.” (Male teacher,50 years, 30 years service, 4 years in QEP)


A deep sense of moral responsibility and obligation towards children developed
The profound changes as well as their moral character were puzzling. Many admitted that ”before, the job was all about the salary.” Here are some examples of changes found in most of the respondents we interviewed: “The most important change in me is that I am now aware of my responsibility towards children and their learning. Before I was not thinking about education as such,”[…] said a female teacher. (32, 4 years in QEP.)

We asked her what she was thinking about education now. She said.” I am helping children to have a variety of knowledge. For example so that children don’t only know of teacher as the only profession they have heard about. I try to give them a broader foundation. It is up to me to create or destroy their future, the future of a person, of my pupils! I also struggle to give these children a better future than their present misery and poverty. If we teachers work hard, children can reach a different level. They can have different occupations. If we don’t do this, there will be no change. Therefore our struggle is very important. We, teachers, build the foundations for the children. We didn’t think about such things before QEP. We saw it as parents’ responsibility.

The major contribution of the project is, I can say, that I have now become aware of my responsibility!” When asked if she thinks it is possible that she may reverse to old practices, she said firmly and with confidence, “That is not possible!” It belongs to the story that this teacher was one of the most silent and reserved teachers during the initial trainings four years ago, and I was doubtful about reaching out to her at all.

Another female teacher was asked what had prompted change, if any, in her. She said: “Observation in different schools at the beginning of the project. I was thinking: ”We are killing people, we are not saving them! I became so shameful. Then we started discussing among ourselves. I didn’t care about what others did before. Now I do. I learn from others also, when they are doing something good. You know, we who teach at the lower grades, we are the foundation. I am happy when I see children do things well. When you identify a child and his problems, he will always approach you. No children did that before. I always have many children around me. I bother about everything now, even teasing. I have my own private methods to make them stop. It is QEP that made this development possible for us. Now we can identify problems. I am surprised to see the big difference from other schools. Here in our school children are reading and writing. I have understood my profession. But I am also sorry, before we have killed a whole generation.” (Female teacher 46, 4 years in QEP)

“QEP has helped us to ask ourselves “Who am I? Both at school and at home. QEP means to think about our children and our activities. It helps us to struggle to solve our problems.” (Female teacher, 26, 3 years in QEP)

The participatory aspect of action research has been a point of discussion both with teachers and with the lecturers. At one point lecturers denied teachers to group work on their action research projects, realizing that some teachers did not contribute much. As leaders of the project we have not insisted on one approach or the other. Instead we try to make also the monitoring lecturers identify advantages and disadvantages of their recommendations to teachers, so as to strengthen their reflectivity. In Ethiopia, like in Laos, the cry for “the right answer” or the “right approach” or “right model” is strikingly similar. This stems from the authoritarian traditional social values. Somebody above, the expert, the boss, the powerful person, the elder, surely must have the key answer to everything. For others the job is to comply. This is a very big challenge for a project that tries to empower people to think for themselves and about themselves. Such thinking also has strong repercussions on how children are viewed and how you relate to them.

Changing conceptions of children and teaching
A male teacher, 50 years, 4 years in QEP, responded to whether there had been anything in particular that had prompted change in him. He though for a minute, then said:

“One day a student asked me a question I did not know the answer to. This was a shock to my. It was a well-thought of and intelligent question. I had not believed that children could pose such questions. They are just children, you know, and I had never thought they were capable of thinking so well. After that I decided always to plan my lessons well. So now I am careful in planning, and I use teaching aids. I keep my class records updated at all times. I teach the lower grades, 1-4, I am happy to teach those kids. I consider them to be my own. In the past I was careless about children. Now I like the profession, so therefore I also like children.”

Discovering the individual child central for inclusive practices and quality improvement
“It is QEP that made this development possible for us. Now we can identify problems. I am surprised to see the big difference from other schools. Here in our school children are reading and writing. I have understood my profession. But I am also sorry, before we have killed a whole generation.”

I have always had an interest in children. But now this interest has developed more, because I know what to do with children. I am very interested in children. From the 2005 mid-term evaluation we found indications of a change in some teachers’ concept of children and teaching. Some of the teachers in the first group we trained said they used to see the class as “ a whole mass”. In our recent interviews some respondents mentioned the same kinds of discovery of the individual child. Some said they now have more interest in children, they even know their names.

One female teacher (36) said she had “saved” a number of girls in the lower primary grades, who were to be married off, by convincing the parents to let the girl finish her education. She admitted she had herself been married off to an elderly man, who had demanded she must stop her education, and when the family did not comply with that, the engagement was broken. She thinks education is one of the most efficient measures against early marriages, which are still practiced in this region.

Improved communication between parents and teachers is also a result of the project and teachers identifying problems, particularly those related to late coming and absentism. What used to be a very reserved and shy female teacher (32, 4 years in QEP) has changed a lot. She said she had “to drink so much coffee and eat so much njeera in order to please parents” when she regularly visits them if there are problems, “after that we can easily talk about the child’s educational problems.” “Changes in children?” ”All things are changed. Everything is completely changed. Absentism is zero. Children have uniforms. Everything in them is changed. They do their assignments. Non-QEP children are different other teachers say, because we have become considerate.” (Female teacher, 42, 4 years in QEP) “Before parents did not have positive attitude to teachers. You know, children did not learn to read and write”, she says with a smile. “Now this negative attitude has changed because we do our job. We are more respected by parents. Parents even bring their children to our QEP school and indicate whom they want to be their teachers. They prefer our school. All this has made me like the profession. I can demonstrate my professionalism through my actions. I like it.”

Participants are also given reading to develop their understanding. This has, however, been challenging for the teachers in Ethiopia, since no material on these topics exist in their language Amharic. In addition to this, participant have admitted, that no academic reading culture or any other, for that matter, exists. Many of them, even lecturers, find it difficult to engage for a long time with texts. Some material has been translated for teachers, who do not read English, but they need more. An Action Research Handbook for Teachers is now under production by the QEP Resource Group, which consists of the trainers in the different countries.

Introducing action research to improve quality in education- some lessons:
Action research gives teachers the ability to develop their professional identity and address any problem related to children’s learning. In Ethiopia action research has also become a new requirement in the college curriculum. Hence, if well practiced and understood at the college, hopefully also new generations of teachers will be influenced. However, few if any lecturers in the institutions in the South are familiar with qualitative research methods or action research, neither theoretically, nor practically. This is also the case with Ethiopia and the other countries participating in the project.

Both in FGIs and individual interviews all the schools now claim to have become more interested in their work to the extent that “we now stay behind after school hours and discuss professional matters, something that did not happen before.” One can therefore conclude that a “whole-school” approach is much more effective than just selecting a few teachers from each school for such a project, something that often generates jealousy and suspicion about benefits. Where head-masters/principals are supportive, even active, success is more likely.

Thorough capacity building in and mastery of qualitative research and action research at college level is of paramount importance for the success of introducing action research for quality education promotion anywhere. This is often overlooked by the education authorities, in their urge to mend the quality problems, so rampant in their countries.

“Before, when I joined the teaching profession I had this attitude or view that education seemed to be very chaotic. Children did not have any discipline, bad administration, no support from anywhere. I wanted to leave and change my profession. Now I think that the teaching profession is the top! Now I love the profession more than anything – I also want to increase my knowledge further. I will never stop teaching!” “What is your view of education?” “Education for mankind means life itself. It encompasses everything.” Future of QEP?” “ If you go away, we will continue – it is part of our life, our job!”
(Female teacher, 26 years, Diploma holder, 3 years in QEP, 6 years of service)

This answer is symptomatic of the responses from many teachers. The longer the involvement in QEP, the more profound the changes in teachers seem to be. Changing traditional thinking, attitudes and practices are challenging and takes time. The way such a project is introduced seems to be just as important as the content. Non-threatening and empowering capacity building is vital for the success. This is also contrary to traditional expectations of teaching and learning, where status, authority and obedience are the order of the day.

By investigating the problems and gradually finding out what constitute them, teachers and teacher educators also come to understand their own role. In action research solutions to the problems must be sought out and investigated by participants. This is a prerequisite for sustainable change. Then, and only then, will the solutions be of a lasting nature, because people have come to understand and also to own the problems. Therefore, participatory action research is a method for empowerment. But such changes in mentality are difficult and may take long time, because they require that participants become responsible for the mistakes they make and also come to see their own role in a different perspective.

This is the way a 50 year old male teacher put it: “QEP has made me self critical, to see my own mistakes. I have to improve my dignity as a teacher. QEP makes me think more about my students, especially those who have problems. Now we deal more practically and actively with problems.”

References
Altrichter, H, Posch, P. and Somekh. B. (1993) Teachers Investigate their work Routledge, London
Beeby, C.E. (1969), Qualitative aspects of educational planning , IIEP Unesco, Paris
Carr, Wilfred and Kemmis, Stephen (1986) Becoming Critical – Education, knowledge and Action Research Falmer Press, Lewes
Elliot, J. Action Research for Educational Change. (1991) Developing teachers and Teaching. Open University Press, Milton Keynes
Habermas, Jürgen (1971) Knowledge and Human Interest Heineman, London
Habermas, J (1986, 1987) The Theory of Communicative Action, Vol. 1- 2 Lifeworld and system Polity Press, Cambridge
Hall, B.L. (1979) ’Participatory research: an approach for change’ in Convergence. 8(2), 24-32
Johannessen, Eva M. (Sept. 2001): “An inclusive, relevant and developmental basic education for all. Evaluation of Save the Children Norway’s basic education program in eight countries.”
McTaggart, Robin (1997) Participatory ActionResearch International Contextsw and Consequences State University of New York Press, NY
Moon, Jennifer A (1999) Reflection in Learning and Professional Development - Theory and Practice Kogan Page, London
Nagel, Tove (1992) Quality between Tradition and Modernity. Patterns of communication and cognition in teacher education in Zimbabwe. Unpublished PhD. Thesis, Oslo University
Nagel, Tove and Stephens, David (2001) Where East meets West: introducing Participatory Action Research in Teacher Training Colleges in Lao Peoples’ Democratic Republic Paper for the Oxford International Conference Knowledge Values and Policy”
Nagel, Tove (ed) (2005) A participatory, formative evaluation of the first phase of the Quality Education Project (QEP), in Gonder Zone, Amhara region, Ethiopia ep 2002 – May 2005 Save the Children Norway, Oslo, http://www.netreed.uio.no/∞
Noffke, Susan and Stevenson, Robert (eds) Educational Action research. Becoming Practically Critical Teacher College Press, Columbia University, New York
Nørager, T. (1987) System og livsverden. Habermas’ konstruksjon av det moderne.
Anis, Århus
Peters, R.S. (1969) The meaning of Quality in education in C.E. Beeby. Qualitative Aspects of educational Planning. IIEP, UNESCO, Paris
Reason, P and Bradbury, H (eds) (2001) Handbook of Action Research. Sage. London
Quality Education Project web-site : www.rb2.no/qep
Ross, Kenneth (ed) (1998) SACMEQ Policy Research Reports no 1, International Institute of Educational Planning, (IIEP) Paris
Schön, Donald: (1983) The reflective practitioner Basic Books, New York
Status and Trends 2000, Assessing learning achievement, Education for All, International
Consultative Forum on Education for All, UNESCO, 2000
Zeichner, Kenneth M and Liston, Daniel (1996) Reflective Teaching - An introduction Laurence Erlbaum Ass. New Jersey
Voigts, Friedhelm The quality of education: some policy suggestions based on a survey of schools SACMEQ policy report 2, Namibia, 1998, IIEP, Paris
“The Leap to Equality EFA Global Monitoring Report 2002, UNESCO, Paris
The Quality Imperative EFA Global Monitoring Report 2004, UNESCO, Paris
UNICEF (2000), “Defining Quality in Education”, New York