Engagement and Participation
The implementation process will determine if there will be successful participation and engagement by the local community. If educational initiatives have had positive collaboration at the implementation level and there has been a successful linking of social capital then there is more of a likelihood that people will participate and engage in programs. For the most part the literature reflects that the formulation and implementation process has had poor inclusion of local civil societies into the education decision-making arena (Novelli, 2010; Pillay, 2010; Rose, 2009, Strutt & Kepe, 2010). This has made it challenging for local people to affectively engage and participate in these programs, the statistics show similar empirical results.
International NGOs mostly provide education to underserved communities (Pillay, 2010; Miller-Grandvaux et al, 2006; Rose, 2009). Often International NGOs’ take on a mandate of trying to improve school quality and attempt to provide education to those who are excluded from state lead educational programming (ex. Girls, rural communities, special needs children…)(Blum, 2009; Coclough & De, 2010; Miller-Grandvaux et Al, 2006; Nishimuko, 2010; Novelli, 2010, Pillay, 2010; Rose, 2010; Strutt & Kepe, 2010). When these educational programs operate through externally funded international NGOs’, many of the participatory structures traditionally inherent in civil society’s involvement in social planning are lost. These development initiatives usually operate under the financial backing of international donors, which has resulted in a less then urgent response in creating financial self-reliance and long-term sustainability of education programs (Strutt & Kepe, 2010). In other words the process for successful engagment and participation is over looked for the specific targeted outcomes.
The literature reflects that often within these operations there is poor participation and engagement by these populations (Blum, 2009; Rose, 2009). This has forced opened a gate for both international and local NGOs to change some of their methodologies to create more inclusive school programming. The role of NGOs, at this level, are beginning to move away from telling the members of the community what they should do, to involving them in decision-making activities (Blum, 2009; Miller-Grandvaux et Al, 2006; Nisihimuko, 2010).
International NGOs mostly provide education to underserved communities (Pillay, 2010; Miller-Grandvaux et al, 2006; Rose, 2009). Often International NGOs’ take on a mandate of trying to improve school quality and attempt to provide education to those who are excluded from state lead educational programming (ex. Girls, rural communities, special needs children…)(Blum, 2009; Coclough & De, 2010; Miller-Grandvaux et Al, 2006; Nishimuko, 2010; Novelli, 2010, Pillay, 2010; Rose, 2010; Strutt & Kepe, 2010). When these educational programs operate through externally funded international NGOs’, many of the participatory structures traditionally inherent in civil society’s involvement in social planning are lost. These development initiatives usually operate under the financial backing of international donors, which has resulted in a less then urgent response in creating financial self-reliance and long-term sustainability of education programs (Strutt & Kepe, 2010). In other words the process for successful engagment and participation is over looked for the specific targeted outcomes.
The literature reflects that often within these operations there is poor participation and engagement by these populations (Blum, 2009; Rose, 2009). This has forced opened a gate for both international and local NGOs to change some of their methodologies to create more inclusive school programming. The role of NGOs, at this level, are beginning to move away from telling the members of the community what they should do, to involving them in decision-making activities (Blum, 2009; Miller-Grandvaux et Al, 2006; Nisihimuko, 2010).
These participatory approaches include facilitating community discussions and negotiations to decide what their problems are, how they might be solved, and how to implement those solutions. International NGOs’ have found that this process can better support the double goal of most NGOs’ of improving education and strengthening civil societies. Strategies implemented by NGOs attempt to assist in creating or training school committees and/or parent-teacher associations (PTAs), organizations through which communities can gain control of their own schools (Blum, 2009; Miller-Grandvaux et Al, 2006; Nisihimuko, 2010). However it should be noted that engagement in school capacity building and the participatory process are often engaged from the “top down.” That is, International NGOs’ and government approach the community about educational programming; instead of community linking with the international NGOs’ or governments. Often this has lead to disengagement of the community once the NGOs’ or incentives have moved on (Pillay, 2010; Rose, 2006). This may suggest that international NGOs’ are attempting to engage communities through western perspectives on education, not through the communities. That is, they are attempting to gain participation and engagement by asking local communities to conform to neo-liberal beliefs instead of localizing cultural relevant education through the beliefs of the indigenous population. It is through these faulty “bottom up” actions that international NGOs’ attempt to gain creditability for their initiatives (Rose, 2009). Rose (2009) states that the research and reports that are published on the successful outcomes of NGO run schools seem to always focus on the success of educational programs, not on the problems.
.
With this in mind the critical literature does reflect positive examples of both local and international NGOs’ positively creating culturally relevant programming, through the participatory process. Blum (2009) indicates that some NGO run schools in India have adjusted the current framework of teaching in there schools and that this was done in consultation with diverse group of professionals, activists and teachers across the country. The framework that was developed placed an emphasis on active learning approaches. As a result of these initiatives NGO run schools are claimed to better able to develop a locally sensitive, child-centered multi grade -teaching methodologies which suit the needs of rural students, teachers and parents (Blum, 2009).
In Sierra Leone’s it is claimed that local NGOs’ have shown that they are better able to identify the local needs of communities and because of their involvement in the implementation and collaboration process, have been able to positively work more practically, efficiently, and effectively in the areas of reducing the teacher–pupil ratio, providing school supplies including learning and teaching materials and in-service training for teachers, in addition to constructing and rehabilitating school infrastructure. Local NGOs have a greater ability to identify local needs, while the international NGO has better access to funds (Nishimuko, 2009).
In Sierra Leone’s it is claimed that local NGOs’ have shown that they are better able to identify the local needs of communities and because of their involvement in the implementation and collaboration process, have been able to positively work more practically, efficiently, and effectively in the areas of reducing the teacher–pupil ratio, providing school supplies including learning and teaching materials and in-service training for teachers, in addition to constructing and rehabilitating school infrastructure. Local NGOs have a greater ability to identify local needs, while the international NGO has better access to funds (Nishimuko, 2009).
Participation and engagement has shown that the international and local NGOs’ can act as “key nodes” (Dale & Sparkes, 2010), which has enabled them to help form collaborative networks among local communities and school officials to help develop culturally relevant programming. However, at the same time the process of including local communities in school programming at this level is problematic as most of the educational agendas have been determined at the formulation and implementation level, and NGOs’ appear to be focusing on buying local population into their agendas, not changing them to meet the needs of the community.