Krishna Prasad Pokhrel

MPhil in Education
Tribhuvan University

PARTICIPATORY PROCESS TO EDUCATIONAL CHANGE

Introduction:
In primitive age there were no organized forms of education, the entire environment
constituted a ‘school’ while all adults, and particularly parents, were ‘teachers.’ In these days,
due to the evolution of complex societies, the quantity of knowledge is so much that there arises
a need to evolve a more effective means of cultural transmission called ‘formal education’
(Abdullahi, S. U., 1996). Formal mass education system is believed to be emerged so as to cater
along with the bureaucratic needs of government. Later, public demand emerged so powerfully
that the system of mass education entrenched overwhelmingly in the society. Formal education
system consists of students, schools and teachers as the most important components and equally,
the parents and community also have important roles to play in the system. The government thus,
is found always playing the pivotal role in this sector. Even though, government alone is
insufficient to foster the education system and hence the support of other stakeholders and
community is more anticipated. While talking about education and community, considering the
means and ends of education underlies a very question that, can we educate for community
without being in community.
In this context, the paper aims to raise a discussion about educational development and
participatory approach on the foreground of educational activities.

Brief Historical Background:

Western Trend: Education, as a social phenomenon is any sort of formalized or semiformalized

system of cultural or intellectual instruction may differ from society to society by its nature.
Sanderson, S. K., (1991) quoting Collins R., (1977) claims that there are three basic types of
education found throughout the world’s societies:
a. education in practical skills
b. education for status-group membership and
c. bureaucratic education
Practical-skill education: This type of education functions to transmit socially useful
knowledge and skills to members of the younger generation. It is based on a master-
apprentice form of teaching. The important crafts like metalworking and the important
social roles are learned by apprenticeship in primitive societies basically in agrarian
civilization.
Status-group education: Status-group educational systems serve to signify the social
status of high ranking groups. This kind of education is employed for the purpose of
symbolizing and reinforcing the prestige and privilege of elite strata of the people. It is
the development of agrarian and industrial societies.
Bureaucratic education: Bureaucratic education system was adopted to serve the
purposes of government so as to device a selection procedure in recruiting personnel to
governmental or other jobs and as a means of socializing and disciplining the masses in
order to win their political compliance. It is therefore, the education focuses emphasis on
examinations, attendance requirements, grades and degrees.
The evolution of modern mass educational system: The impetus behind the emergence
of modern educational system was the industrial form of subsistence. The combined form
of status-group and bureaucratic education however evolving in the direction of
bureaucratic system of education resulted into the modern mass industrial education
system. Some industrial societies like European have adopted sponsored-mobility system
in which considerable educational tracking at an early age exists. American societies
have adopted contest-mobility system which is not based on the tracking mechanism.

Nepalese Context: During the Licchabi period, Nepalese society, with an indigenous scientific
and literary heritage, had a source of engineering, metallurgy and architectural skills. According
to Bista D. B., 1999, pp. 116- 128, Buddhist organizational practices had tended towards creating
regulated schooling systems with some centers of higher education connected with the
monasteries. The Hindu system of education, replacing the Buddhist educational system was
organized on the model of gurukul, evolved as Sanskrit Pathshalas (schools) which reduced in
teaching and learning of religious texts, rituals and praying. Sanskrit Pathshalas, eventually
introduced for the high caste children. With time, education ceased to have relevance for the
larger sector of population.
Ranas adopted the British system of education as practiced in India. As a symbol of
modernization though, within the confines of Rana palace, the first school (Durbar High School)
was founded by Rana premier Jung Bahadur Rana after his visit to France and England. The
school was accessible only to the Rana family and to those of upper class close to them. All the
graduates of the school were employed by the Rana rulers and school education became a
perquisite for an employment which appeared as the symbol of power and prestige to the public.
The only Durbar High School served the nation (particularly to the ruling elites) for forty
years. Then after, in 1901, Dev Shumsher Rana started opening up of almost two hundred
primary schools throughout the country. However, with the wary attitude towards education,
Chandra Shumsher, after sending him in exile, closed down the newly opened schools. During
this period, another kind of schooling called Bhasha Pathshala were developed.
A ministry of education was first established immediate after the overthrown of Rana
regime in the country. With this development, Bista, (1999) believes that it, led to a
bureaucratization of the educational civil service with a great increase in size of the
administrative machinery. With this change, new aspirations of hope and pride emerged in the
public for important social and political positions through education.
In 1954 Nepal government got technical and financial support from US government which
was directed to help develop Multipurpose High Schools and some colleges in various parts of
the country. The school system was expanded and opened to a greater range of people during the
late fifties and the sixties.
In 1969 the government of Nepal adopted a National Education System Plan (NESP). It
was so hardly accepted by the educated elites that they felt the plan was an unfair imposition on
them by a powerful minority. All schools except the Sanskrit Pathshala were nationalized by the
government. Later it was further supported by a committee called National Education Committee
(NEC) under the chairmanship of the Education Minister, launched a programme of National
Development Service (NDS). However, its effort remained unrealistic and pressurized by both
students and teachers. And, eventually the NESP was collapsed by 1979.
In the decade of 1940s, Nepal, formally adopted the mass educating system. According to
Kafle, A. P., 50 year’s effort went to literate only for 40 percent of people. Although three-
fourths of all children aged 6 to 10 years are enrolled in the primary schools, the National
Planning Commission and United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF) report 1996 (as cited in
Kafle) found that almost one million Nepalese children lack access to primary education.
Kafle, illustrating HLNEC (1998) and MOE (1992) reports, further highlights the problems
our educational system as facing are: (a) a high rate of grade repetition, (b) a high drop-out rate
among students, and (c) a low quality of physical, academic, and pedagogical activities having
with excessive numbers of untrained teachers, teacher absenteeism, and ineffective supervision
have been the causes of low quality in education.

Understanding of Participation:

If you have come to help me you can go home again. But if you
see my struggle as part of your own survival then perhaps we can
work together.
-An Australian Aborigine Woman
(cited in the Manila Declaration)

In the development practice, the political debates of the late 1960s have influenced more
radical approaches to community practice. Community participation is seen as a way to
encourage community interest, involvement, ownership and ultimately to obtain sustainability
instead of seeking to help deprived communities to improve their social and environmental
circumstances (Midgley et al 1986: 20 – cited in Smith, M. K. 1999, 2006). However, the Manila
declaration on people’s participation and sustainable development (1989) expresses the concern
that, “current development practices are not just sustainable or inclusive but based on a model
that demeans the human spirit, divests people of their sense of community and control over their
own lives, exacerbates social and economic inequity, and contributes to destruction of the
ecosystem on which all life depends”.
They have call for a people-centered development model for active mutual self-help
among people, working together in their common struggle to deal with their common problems,
with recognizing self-respect and self-reliance of the community. It does not seek the
international philanthropic aid as the answer to poverty. The basic principles of people-centered
development model as the Manila declaration premised are:
1. Sovereignty resides with the people, who are the real social
actors. Freedom and democracy are universal human aspirations.
The legitimate role of government is to enable the people to set and
pursue their own agenda.
2. To exercise their sovereignty and assume responsibility for
the development of themselves and their communities, the people
must control their own resources, have access to relevant
information, and have the means to hold the officials of
government accountable. Freedom of association and expression,
and open access to information are fundamental to the responsible
exercise of this sovereignty. Governments must protect these
rights. People from all countries must work together in solidarity to
insure that governments accept and act on this responsibility.
3. Those who would assist the people with their development
must recognize that it is they who are participating in support of
the people’s agenda, not the reverse. The value of the outsider’s
contribution will be measured in terms of the enhanced capacity of
the people to determine their own future.

Participation thus, means that people’s direct and closed involvement in the processes of
every social, political, cultural and economic development activities having direct and complete
control over these processes with the freedom of association and expression along with a
democratic political environment so as to exercise their sovereignty.

Participatory Process to Social Transformation:

Participatory approaches are increasingly advocated and adopted in terms to ensure the
provision of physical infrastructure, services and trainings, transform social groups in turn to
attain development enterprise.
An integrative approach to community practice developed at the Center for Participatory
Change, Western North Carolina, advocates for the blend of three practice approaches:
community organizing, popular education and participatory development (Castelloe, P., et al;
2002).
Community organizing: The process of bringing people together for the purpose of task (tasks
related to social, economic, political, or physical well-being) accomplishment and capacity (in
terms of developing leadership, organizing skills, analyzing problems etc.) building.
Popular education: The practice of popular education is a combined effort based on two
processes as learning from experience and dialogue. With the process in coming together, people
can learn about the larger social, political, and economic contexts by reflecting on their everyday
experiences. Education through dialogue is the process that educators and students interact with
one another in a way in which both are co-speakers, co-learners, and co-actors; which is opposed
to the traditional practices where passive learners receive knowledge through banking process
from teachers. Popular education is thus associated with the work of Paulo Freire in the Global
South (Freire, 1970, 1974, 1996) and Myles Horton of the Highlander Research and Education
Center in the US (Glen, 1996; Horton, Kohl, & Kohl, 1990; cited in Castelloe, P., et al, 2002).
Participatory development: The assumption that participatory development process holds:
marginalized and low-income people best understand the problems they face and how to
overcome. Methodologically, the process is notable for three innovations:
1. it applies Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA) methods such that, community mapping,
wealth and well-being ranking, and preference ranking,
2. in implementing these methods it emphasizes on the attitudes and behaviors in a way that
must be fundamentally participatory, and,
3. it emphasizes on the capacity building of grassroots to thrive on their own (Eade, 1997;
Gubbels & Koss, 2000; -cited in Castelloe, P., et al, 2002).

The Importance of Participation:

The core perspective of participatory change that, Castelloe, P., et al, (2002) illustrate, is
built upon the themes of ‘power through participation’ and ‘education through action’.
Power through participation: In practice, participatory change is built upon the theory of
power and participation. Power is participation and participation is power. Those who gain
power are the participants involved in the process of decision-making even within a conventional
system or institution and the losers are the nonparticipants. It is believed that the conventional
systems and institutions are failed to meet the needs of society’s most marginalized people due to
the conventional set up of such institutions that, actively refrained the participation of these
people in the process of decisions that affect their lives. It is therefore, Chambers, R. (1983)
calls for ‘putting the last first’. The important thing is that people have constant access to
decision-making and power. The goal of participatory approach, therefore, is “to work with
people to create alternative structures (beyond the existing ones) through which groups of
marginalized people can come together to articulate and meet their own needs, on their own
terms and to work hand-in-hand with the people as they gain collective power needed to shape
existing systems to become more inclusive, responsive, accountable, and participatory”
(Castelloe, P., et al; 2002).
Education through action: Popular education focuses on community-based education through
collective action. People have gained many skills and much knowledge through their life
experiences which is an experiential wisdom. People learn best when they have a need to
understand; this ‘need to know’ is crucial to develop critical consciousness which enables them a
better learning instead through trainings or education sessions.

Participatory Process to Education:

In the sector of nonformal education, it is common that, students and community
participation has relatively a long history in practice. Education sector can be more improved by
increasing participation of stakeholders. According to World Bank report (Colletta, N. J and
Perkins, G.), such participation can increase the relevance and quality of education, improve
ownership, build consensus, help to reach remote and disadvantaged groups, mobilize additional
resources, and build institutional capacity. It is further beneficial that the involvement of parents
and community members in the process of decision making encourage to make integrated and
locally relevant curriculum, teaching materials, and academic calendar appropriate to the local
conditions which is more relevant to improve teacher and student attendance rates. Eventually
the effort would be more effective to reduce dropout and repeater rates, improve achievement
scores, and enrollments. Increasing community participation demands more decentralized policy.
World Bank experiment talks of the practice in community participation improving the quality of
education in Pakistan, parents and the community members found more willing to contribute
money, buildings, time and effort to their school when they trust the teachers.
Community practice in education enhances understanding and good rapport between teachers,
parents and community members. Abdullahi, S. U., (1996) further argues in this vein that,
participatory approach in education:
a. enables and prepares parents and other community members to
face the problems of the schools;
b. complements government efforts in the provision of
infrastructures, educational materials and maintenance of the
schools;
c. encourages students when they see their parents interested and
working together in their schools;
d. lobbies with government and other NGOs, INGOs, and local
authorities for support in the schools.

Illustrating Epstein’s the theory of over-lapping spheres, Bull, A. et al. (2008) raised the
discussion that, students’ learning can be improved by building collaborative relationship
between schools, families and communities. According to the theory of ‘organizing framework’
as Epstein advocates would contribute to create a learning community with child at the centre by
sharing responsibility in the areas of parenting, communicating, volunteering, learning at home,
and decision-making along with collaborating community members.
National Strategy for Development of Basic Education in the Republic of Yemen 2003-
2015, Jones (2005), refers to the establishment of Fathers’ and Mothers’ Councils, in the
promotion of Community Participation. Such councils as local units of Ministry of Education
play vital roles in the advancement of trainings and other activities in social and community
works for the larger educational change.

Promotion Strategies for Participatory Process:

Participatory approach should initiate from the bottom of grassroots people. In the
process of decision-making, parents and community members should be involved in all of
activities from the very beginning stage of need assessing, planning and execution, to the
monitoring and evaluation. In an Indian context, Pandey (2006), argues on following strategic
principles for the promotion of participatory approach to achieve desired change in the education
sector:
 (i) A village education committee should be formed with the
involvement of elected representatives of VDC and other local
level people's institutions and teachers.
(ii) Women elected representatives should be made responsible for
ensuring full enrollment of girls in the village.
(iii) An education register should be maintained and updated based
on the household survey.
(iv) The community inputs along with school inputs should be
identified properly and responsibilities should be fixed.
(v) People's perceptions about a number of issues related to school
education management, eg. time, holiday, curriculum etc. should
receive due consideration.
(vi) A mechanism should be maintained to involve representatives
of VDC, voluntary agencies, youth club, mahila sanghs and other
local level institutions to prepare micro planning at the village, and
district level.
(vii) Monitoring and evaluation are essential to provide feedback
in order to identify the problems and constraints in
implementation. Community participation is essential not only to
know how many but who benefits from education. It helps to
determine which need and whose needs are to be met. It is
increasingly gaining ground that the best monitoring system is one
in which beneficiaries do some checking themselves.

Along with these suggestions, it would be better to establish SMCs with the
representation of all stakeholders in the education system. Information sharing and dialogue
among stakeholders, flexibility in funding, and timing establishing appropriate mechanisms for
ensuring accountability with proper monitoring and evaluation systems would strengthen and
promote the participation.

Conclusion:
According to Schumacher (1973), as Kafle, A. P. argues, ‘education and development
appear to be two sides of the same coin. Development does not start with goods; it starts with
people and education.’ Educational achievement depends upon the joint effort of common people
rather the matter of outsiders; the government and international concern. However, the concern
has been initiated from the core of international community. In terms of our local context, most
of us are suffering from weak, inadequate and inefficient administration and management skills
on the part of government as well as the key actors involved in this sector. Having the lack of
access to information on technical options, costs, benefits, and opportunities, people are not
coming willingly in the front of the play. On the part of government, it may require a strong
political will along with efficient management system of the provision of functional structure of
education administration, adequate information system for diagnosis, decision making,
monitoring and evaluation and well trained and motivated staff. Similarly, people and
communities should be made aware of the vision of education in implementing the means and
ends and the scope of basic education, enhanced learning environment, strengthened partnerships
so as to create school as a learning center of community.

References:

Abdullahi, S. U., (1996; Parent -Teacher Association (Pta) As An Instrument Of Community

Participation In Education.
Presented on 21st. December, 1996, at Kongo Conference Hotel, Zaria.
www.google.com, (October, 2008)

Bista, D. B., (1999); FATALISM AND DEVELOPMENT: Nepal’s Struggle For Modernization.
Orient Longman Ltd.: Govind Mitra Road, Patna.

Bull, A., Brooking, K. and Campbell, R. (2008); Successful Home–School Partnerships

Report prepared for Ministry of Education
New Zealand Council for Educational Research
www.educationcounts.govt.nz/publications, (October, 2008)

Castelloe, P., Watson, T., & White, C., (2002); Participatory change: An innovative approach to
community practice.
Journal of Community Practice, 10(4), 7-32.
www.cpcwnc.org, (October, 2008)

Chambers, R., (1983); Rural development: Putting the last first.

TALC Edition.

Colletta N. J. and Perkins G.; Participation in the Education and Training Sector
The World Bank Participation Sourcebook
Appendix II: Working Paper Summaries
www.google.com, (October, 2008)

Desai K.; Importance of Community Participation in Ensuring Education of Special Needs

Children
Blind People’s Association
Vastrapur, Ahmedabad, India.
blinabad1@sancharnet.in, (October, 2008)

Jones, A., (2005); Conflict, Development and Community Participation in Education: Pakistan
and Yemen
Internationales Asienforum, Vol. 36 (2005), No. 3–4.
www.google.com, (October, 2008)

Pandey, A. P., (2006); Gender Disparities In Education – Needs Community Participation

MPRA Paper No. 622, posted 07. November 2007 / 01:10

http://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/622/, (October, 2008).

Sanderson S. K., (1991); Educational Systems in Sociological Perspective,

MACROSOCIOLOGY: An Introduction To Human Society.
Harper Collins Publishers: New York.

Smith, M. K., (1999, 2006); Community participation

The encyclopaedia of informal education,
www.infed.org/community/b-compar.htm., (October, 2008)