A Critical Evaluation of the Meaning of Quality in Education

A Critical Evaluation of the Meaning of Quality in Education

A Critical Evaluation of the Meaning of Quality in Education

  “A good quality education is one that provides all learners with capabilities they require to become economically productive, develop sustainable livelihoods, contribute to peaceful and democratic societies and enhance individual well-being. The learning outcomes that are required vary according to context but at the end of the basic education cycle must include threshold levels of literacy and numeracy, basic scientific knowledge and life skills including awareness and prevention of disease. Capacity development to improve the quality of teachers and other education stakeholders is crucial throughout this process."

http://www.vvob.be/vvob/en/education/our-vision-on-quality-education

The aforementioned quote which is WOB’s vision of quality in education succinctly outlines some of the elements that go into what is conceptualized as quality in education.  Some of these elements are learners, content, processes, teacher quality, environments and outcomes. Additionally, a plethora of papers and working papers have been written which strive to postulate a definition of the concept of quality in education all of which attest to its complexity and variegated nature. So far, there is no common agreement on the definition of quality in education as different writers have each taken what they believe to be a critical component or components  of what they opine is required for quality in education. However, what is clear from all of these papers and theoretical views is that certain facets (efficiency, measurability, equity and effectiveness) are common to all of them.

Schweisfurth(2014) in her article titled “Learner-centered pedagogy: Towards a post-2015 agenda for teaching and learning”, bemoans the challenges she and others have   with regards to  pedagogy  and in particular learning  and attention to classroom processes in the debate which surrounds the  post-2015 agenda of the Millennium Development Goals(MDG). While admitting that quality is embedded in the proposals put forward by many agencies, and there is reference to pedagogy as a process within this there is little detail of what this looks like in the classroom and a fixation with measurable inputs and outcomes continues to prevail.  She gives recognition to Alexander’s (2014) analysis of the neglect of pedagogy, the defining of quality and the problem of measurement but goes further to focus in particular on learner-centered forms of pedagogy.  She notes that learner-centered pedagogy as a policy discourse has been a globally-travelling prescription for improvements to teaching and learning, but opines that it has been laden with problems of definition, inappropriate transfer, and implementation challenges. Consequently, it necessitates ongoing consideration in its conceptualization and beneficial potential, especially in the context of the post- 2015 debate on education in low-income countries.

Schweisfurth (2014) argues for a perspective on teaching and learning which acknowledges the multiple interactions within and beyond the classroom which shape experiences, individual identities, and social worlds.  She notes that any planned interventions may take the form of imposed visions of good pedagogy and must be equally monitored. She draws on historical data which shows that the preoccupation of the MDG was largely on access to basic education but argues that while this was a good thing; of even greater concern was the fact that there were a growing number of people who had no access to higher levels, quality learning and outcomes.

 She outlines some standards which she believes are necessary for the LCE to be effective. These are:

• Lessons should be engaging to students, motivating them to learn. Learner motivation and cognitive engagement is critical to the learning experience.
• Mutual respect between teachers and learners and for communal atmosphere and interpersonal relationships to co-exist. In this regard the rights of learners need to be respected in terms of the sanctions that are used and relationships should not be exploitative           
• What students learn must build on what they already know. This is in keeping with Vygotsky’s Zone of Proximal Development
• Dialogic teaching in which there is active participation and feedback from both students and teachers.
• Relevance of the curriculum to the present and future lives of the learners. Learners should be able to apply meaning from what they learn to their social and personal worlds.
• Curriculum and pedagogy embrace skills (such as critical and creative) and attitude (relevant for citizenship) outcomes as well as the acquisition of knowledge.
• Meaningful assessment which improves the lives of those affected by it. Assessment also need to flow from the principles above, and so should not be purely content-driven or based on rote learning. They should be based on and build on what learners have acquired and be informative and relevant both to teachers and learners.

  Schweisfurth, (2014) posits that it is important that pedagogy supports both learning and rights, and offers possibilities as an enabling goal which provides a means through which meaningful learning targets might be realized. She believes it is deserving of the attention in the form of investment in developmental support for teachers and teacher educators and the gathering and comparing of evidence on sound practice by international agencies in collaboration with national policy makers and local shapers of pedagogical practice. For her, the post-2015 agenda is an opportunity to look beyond the small circle of light cast by data on outcomes and to think inclusively about the interactions within and beyond classrooms and what these mean for development.

The arguments postulated by Schweisfurth (2014) are basically sound arguments. She is a key stakeholder and her choice to focus on learner centered-pedagogy is crucial towards an understanding of the meaning of quality in education. As Beeby (1966) noted, “Indeed, each of us judges the school system in terms of the final goals we set for our children our community, our country and ourselves.” I agree with her because definitions of quality must be open to change and evolution based on information, changing contexts, and new understandings of the nature of education’s challenges. Her push for a learner- centered pedagogy   has some merits especially as it relates to the minimum standards.  Glasser(1990), noted that organizations and policymakers who embrace change through data generation, use and self-assessment are more likely to offer quality education to students. Schweisfurth’s research on LCE as an effective measure of quality post 2015 is very relevant.