the World Bank and the world teachers

Non-governmental organizations (NGOs) are the ones which are aimed at tackling such crucial world problems as poverty alleviation, augmentation of work places and education provision so as to enhance “positive social change” internationally (Burde, 2004, p. 173). However, the term ‘NGO’ nowadays long since been discredited: it is no more connected with philanthropic, non-profit ideas as it was before, since beneath each benevolent intention there always some pecuniary motives exist; in particular, every international organization has its own country assistance scheme (Bano, 2008; Silova & Steiner‐Khamsi, 2008). Needless to say all the NGOs’ strategies lie upon one cornerstone, which is human capital theory. This post revolves around the darkest NGO “horse”, epitomized by the World Bank, which is targeted toward the accomplishment of “Education for All” strategy, skillfully using the human capital theory as an armor, though sometimes unreasonably. Thus, the author sets an aim to challenge this strategy from the perspective of one of the main education stakeholders – educators, and wants to explore the educators’ role in the “Education for All” campaign, questioning whether teachers’ interests are considered among these “all” and what can be improved.

Although the World Bank is inclined to see itself as the representative of all bilateral donors, in fact, there is little resemblance with one. Steiner-Khamsi (2012) gives example of another largest donor in per-capita spending on aid, Danish International Development Agency (DANIDA), which is driven by a human rights approach to education, without being restricted only to literacy and numeracy comparing with the World Bank Learning for All campaign (DANIDA, 2010; World Bank, 2010).  Albeit, all things considered, it is not hard to notice, that the leitmotif of The World Bank’s creed is to monopolize and rule and it is self-evident that the World Bank turned into “the architect of what has become a truly global education policy” as Klees remarks sardonically (2012, p. 49). This idea fully concurs with Jone’s (2014) stance on that the World Bank, under the canopy of “knowledge economy” just trying to springe more vulnerable countries in its loan covenants; which, by the same token, results into greater policy influence. Moreover, the World Bank successfully operates with the term “human capital” though, it does not care about human factor.

As a matter of fact, obsession over the human capital theory undermined drastically the teachers’ role within the education context. As Ginsburg (2012) notes, the World Bank Education Strategy 2020 document exhorts to treat teachers as human capital, which can contribute to the “production” process in schools. Such an idea brings a metaphor to the mind, where the teacher is no longer a person, who should encourage and motivate young padawans, yet who is just another element in an enormous education production system. Therefore, it is pivotal to include educators’ interests into the World Bank Education Strategy 2020 rather than calculate them only as a part of human capital – the resource, which can be exploited by the country only out of pecuniary interest; otherwise, the sustainability of such an educational platform may not be panned out successfully. 

            To crown it all, it is worth noting that despite the sanguine tone of the “Learning for All” World Bank campaign, it does not necessarily mean the inclusiveness, on the contrary, such a campaign promotes inequality and even promulgates consumer attitude toward the education, speculating on the human capital theory and totally neglecting the human factor. All in all, whereas some NGOs work as beneficiaries, the World Bank is aimed at getting the profit from the weak players, and more often it resembles Faustian bargain with coercing to accept one or another education reform package, which can be profoundly detrimental to the prosperity of any national government.      

References

Bano, M. (2008). Dangerous correlations: aid’s impact on NGOs’ performance and ability to mobilize members in Pakistan. World Development, 36(11), 2297-2313.

Burde, D. (2014). International NGOs and Best Practices: The Art of Educational Lending. In G. Steiner-Khamsi (Eds.), The global politics of educational borrowing and lending. Teachers College Press.

DANIDA. (2010). Freedom from poverty—Freedom to change. Strategy for Denmark’s development cooperation. Copenhagen: Danish International Development Agency.

Ginsburg, M. (2012). Teachers as Learners: A Missing Focus in “Learning for All”. In S. Klees, J. Samoff, & N. Stromquist. The World Bank and education: Critiques and alternatives (Vol. 14). Springer Science & Business Media.

Jones, P. (2014). Taking the Credit: Financing and Policy Linkages in the Education Portfolio of the World Bank. In G. Steiner-Khamsi (Eds.), The global politics of educational borrowing and lending. Teachers College Press.

Klees, S. (2012). Ideological Premises and Ideological Conclusions. In S. Klees, J. Samoff, & N. Stromquist. The World Bank and education: Critiques and alternatives (Vol. 14). Springer Science & Business Media.

Silova, I., & Steiner-Khamsi, G. (Eds.). (2008). How NGOs react: Globalization and education reform in the Caucasus, Central Asia and Mongolia. Kumarian Press.

Steiner-Khamsi, G. (2012). The World Bank’s Global Framework for Education. In S. Klees, J. Samoff, & N. Stromquist. The World Bank and education: Critiques and alternatives (Vol. 14). Springer Science & Business Media.

World Bank. (2010). 2020 Education Strategy. The World Bank Group’s Education Sector Strategy 2020 Consultation Plan. Washington, D.C.: World Bank.