Cartilla de Narrativa Audiovisual

LITERACY FOR WHAT?
LITERACY
FOR WHOM? THE POLITICS OF LITERACY
EDUCATION AND NEOCOLONIALISM IN
UNESCO- AND WORLD
BANK–SPONSORED LITERACY PROGRAMS*
CORRINE M. WICKENS
Texas A&M University
JENNIFER A. SANDLIN
Arizona State University
This article explores literacy education, especially the kinds practiced and promoted by orga-
nizations such as the World Bank and the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural
Organization (UNESCO), as a form of neocolonialism. Although researchers in other educa-
tional contexts have examined how schooling and education operate as a form of neocolonialism,
little research has been conducted exploring this connection within adult literacy education.
Using postcolonial theory and Thomas and Postlethwaite’s framework for analyzing neocolo-
nialism in educational systems, the authors present findings from a qualitative textual analy-
sis of UNESCO- and World Bank–sponsored publicity and policy documents in which they
examined two dimensions of literacy programs sponsored by UNESCO and the World Bank:
(a) the purposes of literacy and (b) the funding of programs. Despite progressive shifts in how
literacy is defined and practiced from colonialist Western control to local governance, for
these shifts to continue, financial structures must be reorganized.
Keywords: adult literacy; critical literacy; international literacy organizations; postcolonial

critique; neocolonialism; qualitative document analysis
*This article was accepted under the previous editors.
CORRINE M. WICKENS is a doctoral candidate in the Department of Teaching, Learning, and

Culture at Texas A&M University. Her research interests include adolescent literacy, children’s and
young adult literature, and gender and sexuality in education.
JENNIFER A. SANDLIN is an assistant professor in the Division of Curriculum and Instruction at
Arizona State University in Tempe, AZ. Her research interests include adult literacy education, con-
sumer education for adults, curriculum issues in adult education, popular culture as a site of learning,
and critical pedagogy.
ADULT EDUCATION QUARTERLY, Vol. 57 No. 4, August 2007 275-292
DOI: 10.1177/0741713607302364
© 2007 American Association for Adult and Continuing Education
275
Downloaded from aeq.sagepub.com at Pontificia Universidad Javeriana. Biblioteca Alfonso Borrero Cabal, S.J. on January 29,
2015
276 ADULT EDUCATION QUARTERLY / August 2007
According to the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural

Organization’s (UNESCO) Institute for Statistics, one of five individuals world-
wide is illiterate, and more than 27 nations continue to demonstrate mass illiter-
acy rates. The World Bank presents equally alarming figures. In response to this
“literacy crisis” (de Castell, Luke, & Egan, 1986), both UNESCO and the World
Bank sponsor literacy programs around the world. Underlying these programs are
tacit beliefs in the positive effects of literacy, often referred to as the “literacy
myth” (Graff, 1979). That is, the acquisition of literacy skills has often been asso-
ciated with positive outcomes, including “community, self- and socioeconomic
worth, mobility, access to information and knowledge, rationality, morality, and
orderliness” (Graff, 1979, p. xv). Critical literacy researchers, however, have
challenged these beliefs, arguing that literacy does not necessarily lead to these
positive outcomes and that, in fact, literacy education has often been used for
oppression (Luke, 2003; Quigley, 1997). Critical literacy educators (Freire, 1970;
Lankshear & Knobel, 2006; Luke, 2003) assert that literacy education is inher-
ently political and see many current programs as continuing social control and
fostering deficit perspectives and the literacy myth.
In this article, we focus attention on how literacy education is being spread
across the globe through intergovernmental organizations such as UNESCO and
the World Bank, and take the critiques of critical literacy researchers as our start-
ing point. However, because of the importance of the process of neoliberal glob-
alization in shaping this literacy education, we extend these critiques through
exploring the possibility that within lesser developed countries, the form literacy-
education-as-oppression takes can be understood as neocolonialism, which con-
sists of a “politically independent people of a developing nation continuing to be
bound, though voluntarily and perhaps through necessity, to a European or
American society, or to such a Western derivative society as that of New Zealand
or Australia” (Thomas & Postlethwaite, 1984, p. 13). Neocolonialism describes a
situation wherein although many formerly colonized countries have gained geo-
graphical and political independence, “cultural and economic independence was
never really, if at all, won. The colonial systems of domination continue . . . as
the former colonizers continue to economically, culturally, financially, militarily
and ideologically dominate what constitutes the so-called developing world”
(Chilisa, 2005, p. 660).
Although other researchers have analyzed the politics of adult literacy educa-
tion (Maruatona, 2004; Maruatona & Cervero, 2004; Sandlin, 2004; Walter,
2005), few have made connections between literacy education, globalization, and
neocolonialism. In addition, although researchers in other educational contexts
have examined how education operates as a form of neocolonialism (Bray, 1993;
Milligan, 2004; Mulenga, 2001; Thomas, 1993; Watson, 1994), little research has
been conducted exploring this connection within literacy education. In addition,
although there is research focusing on the politics of the World Bank and
2015
Wickens, Sandlin / LITERACY EDUCATION AND NEOCOLONIALISM 277
UNESCO (Banya & Elu, 2001; Bonal, 2004; Harrison, 2005; Heyneman, 2003;
Jaggar, 2002; Kempner & Loureiro, 2002; Oduaran, 2000; Vavrus, 2005; Vawda,
Moock, Gittinger, & Patrinos, 2003), little research considers literacy education
as practiced through these organizations as a form of neocolonialism.
Given the spread of literacy education across the globe through the World
Bank and UNESCO, it is important to critically analyze how literacy is positioned
and practiced by these organizations. We chose these two organizations because
of their unprecedented international influence on education policy and practice
(Stromquist, 2002). First, UNESCO was founded in 1945 with one of its princi-
pal aims being to foster and spread worldwide basic literacy. It is one of several
specialized agencies connected to the United Nations System, drawing its fund-
ing from two primary sources: its annual budget and extrabudgetary funding.
UNESCO’s annual budget derives from its 191 member states, based on each
country’s gross national product. For the period 2002-2003, for example,
UNESCO’s budget totaled US$544 million. UNESCO also draws from extrabud-
getary sources to help fund and support some its various programs. In 2002,
extrabudgetary income totaled US$360 million (UNESCO, 2006b).
Although historically UNESCO has professionally dominated international
policies regarding education, the World Bank began financing educational invest-
ments in the early 1960s. Originally created to help rebuild Europe after World
War II, the principal focus of the World Bank has been providing start-up capital
for developing needed infrastructure for trade and national growth. In the 1960s,
the World Bank began investing in vocational education programs based on
demands for manpower. Then in the 1980s, the World Bank, responding to critics
of its solely vocational and technical educational emphasis, broadened the scope
of its financial investments to include all levels of education, from elementary to
higher education, and to include academic and basic education (Heyneman, 2003).
Although both the World Bank and UNESCO are connected to the broad
United Nations System, significant conflict has arisen to the roles and influence
of the two agencies (Heyneman, 2003). Despite UNESCO’s historical and pro-
fessional role in developing and supporting international literacy initiatives, the
World Bank has supplanted UNESCO in recent decades as the primary funding
agent for international literacy programs. Whereas UNESCO’s budget for 2002
totaled just more than US$900 million, the World Bank provides US$3 billion
in new loan investments annually. Furthermore, much of UNESCO’s afore-
mentioned extrabudgetary funding derives from the World Bank itself
(Heyneman, 2003).
In what follows, we first review literature on education, neocolonialism, and
postcolonial theory. We then present a framework for analyzing neocolonialism
in educational systems and use this framework to examine two dimensions of lit-
eracy programs sponsored by UNESCO and World Bank: (a) the purposes of lit-
eracy and (b) the funding of programs.
2015
EDUCATION, NEOCOLONIALISM, AND POSTCOLONIAL THEORY

Colonialism is defined by Brookfield (1972) as
a thoroughgoing, comprehensive and deliberate penetration of a local or ‘residentiary’

system by the agents of an external system, who aim to restructure the patterns of
organization, resource use, circulation and outlook so as to bring these into a linked
relationship with their own systems. (pp. 1-2).
Altbach and Kelly (1978) distinguish between three kinds of colonialism:

(a) classical, (b) internal, and (c) neocolonialism. Thomas and Postlethwaite (1984)
explain that classic or traditional colonialism occurs when a country or territory
is ruled by a distant Western government that controls decisions on political, eco-
nomic, and social issues, including issues of education. In contrast, internal colo-
nialism occurs when one subgroup within a self-governing social group controls
or dominates another subgroup. Altbach and Kelly state that neocolonialism
“constitutes the deliberate policies of the industrialized nations to maintain their
domination. It may function through foreign-aid programs, technical advisers,
publishing firms, or other means” (p. 30). Neocolonialism typically refers to the
“control of states by external powers despite the formal appearance of constitu-
tional independence” (Bray, 1993, p. 334).
In this article, we draw from postcolonial theory as well as the framework
offered by Thomas and Postlethwaite (1984) and Thomas (1993) for analyzing
neocolonialism in education. Postcolonial critique subverts dominant ideology
for purposes of analyzing historical and contemporary events from the perspec-
tive of the subaltern (Gramsci, 1992; Spivak, 1988). The historical era of colo-
nization in the 19th century, against which postcolonial theory principally reacts,
brought about diverse forms of colonization and an ensuing myriad forms of
oppression, for example, slavery, racist ideology, and privileged colonized elites
who in turn became colonizers themselves. As such, postcolonial critique derives
its impetus from the multiplicity of anticolonial movements across the globe but
especially from within Latin America, Africa, and Asia (Young, 2001).
Although the post in postcolonial studies signifies a time period subsequent to
direct rule of colonialist and imperialist countries, it is not meant to intimate a
denial or conclusion of imperialist control through economic and political domi-
nation (Young, 2001). In fact, neocolonialism is frequently used to accentuate the
continued economic and ideological power imbalances between the dominant
elite and the subaltern (Gramsci, 1992). Kwame Nkrumah, a post-independence
Ghanaian leader, contended, “The essence of neocolonialism is that the State
which is subject to it is, in theory, independent and has all the outward trappings
of international sovereignty. In reality its economic system and thus political pol-
icy is directed from outside” (as quoted in Young, 2001, p. 46).
One important way colonizers helped to “inscribe the colonizing ideology”
(Chilisa, 2005, p. 660) onto the colonized was through the instrument of educa-
tion (Altbach & Kelly, 1978; Carnoy, 1974; Mudimbe, 1994; Watson, 1994).
2015
According to Bray (1993), schools in colonial settings were “primarily designed

to meet the conceptions and needs of the colonizers rather than the colonized, and
this influenced the amount, type and availability of education” (p. 334). Watson
(1994) asserts that colonial educational systems destroyed existing indigenous
educational systems, which in many cases were linked strongly to cultural norms
and work preparation. The structures of school systems, textbook and curriculum
content, assessment systems, and pedagogical practices were all created in colo-
nial systems in the image of the colonial powers (Watson, 1994) and thus typi-
cally ignored or sought to replace local cultures and discourses. In fact, the
agenda of the colonizers was largely
characterized by ideological processes aimed at undermining the authenticity of the

‘other.’ Hence, education was framed, constructed and driven by an ideology aimed
at colonizing the mind and alienating the self and creating an individual that did not
believe in her/himself. (Chilisa, 2005, p. 660)
ANALYZING NEOCOLONIALISM
One useful tool from the literature on education and colonialism is the framework
developed by Thomas and Postlethwaite (1984) and Thomas (1993) for analyzing
neocolonialism within educational contexts; it is based on the idea that different
dimensions of schooling within any country can be placed on a continuum where
complete control by foreign powers is at one end of the continuum and complete
control by independent nations is on the other. The framework assumes that differ-
ent dimensions within the same school system can be at different points along the
continuum and provides a useful way to analyze these different aspects of schooling.
In fact, many studies of colonialism and neocolonialism within educational systems
show that colonialism affects different dimensions of educational systems in differ-
ent ways (Bray, 1993), and this framework points to some aspects of schooling most
related to colonialism. Specifically, the framework incorporates six dimensions:
• Dimension 1: The purpose of schooling

• Dimension 2: The educational system’s administrative structure
• Dimension 3: Educational personnel
• Dimension 4: Composition of student population
• Dimension 5: Curriculum and instructional methodology
• Dimension 6: The educational system’s financing
Although this framework was originally created to examine formal schooling

for children and youth, we feel it is relevant for adult literacy education and adapt
it for our use. We focus specifically on Dimension 1 (purpose or goals of literacy
education) and Dimension 6 (funding of programs), which we feel are particu-
larly relevant. We draw on several sources of data to examine these two dimen-
sions, including formal publicity and policy documents published by the World Bank
and UNESCO as well as secondary literature related to how these organizations
position literacy education and how they are funded.
2015
The World Bank document we analyzed, Skills and Literacy Training for Better
Livelihoods (Oxenham, Diallo, Katahoire, Petkova-Mwangi, & Sall, 2002),
describes and evaluates World Bank–sponsored literacy programs serving poor,
rural women throughout Africa. Two primary UNESCO documents were analyzed.
Literacy for Change (UNESCO, 2003b), a themed issue of the New Courier mag-
azine, promotes and informs UNESCO readership and interest groups about the
status of literacy and UNESCO’s literacy programs worldwide. Within this docu-
ment, different individuals authored different sections. To make authorship clear,
when discussing the Literacy for Change UNESCO document we will refer to the
author, then Literacy for Change, and then the date. In Literacy for Change, three
principal programs are highlighted: the People’s Center in Bangladesh, the
REFLECT program in Orissa, and a “slum school” in New Delhi. The second
UNESCO document we analyze, Literacy—A UNESCO Perspective (UNESCO,
2003a), is an informational booklet clarifying UNESCO’s contributions to the lit-
eracy awareness initiatives Literacy Decade and Education for All (EFA).
We chose these documents because they are representative of World Bank and
UNESCO’s policies on literacy in tricontinental areas. To analyze data, we drew
from two methods of qualitative analysis. First, we used the constant comparative
method to gain an understanding of the documents’ content. Although generally
associated with Glaser and Strauss’s (1967) grounded theory methodology, where
it is used to develop substantive theory, the constant comparative method is “com-
patible with the inductive, concept-building orientation of all qualitative
research” (Merriam, 1998, p. 159). To perform this analysis, we conducted initial
or open coding, wherein we first unitized the texts into meaningful units, then
identified and assigned codes to bits of relevant data. We then performed what
Cresswell (1998) terms “axial coding,” wherein conceptual categories or themes
emerged from the data.
Second, we drew on textual discursive analysis and especially Fairclough’s
(2003) approach, which is concerned with the relationship between language and
social life. This approach assumes texts are social products that can effect change;
one way texts do this is through their ideological orientations, which can sustain
or change power relations. Critical discourse analysis seeks to clarify ideological
orientations through examining the linguistic forms of texts, paying attention to
such elements as genre structures (how texts are structured—for instance, a news
report is structured differently than lecture notes), collocations (the co-occurrence
of words), and semantic and grammatical relations between sentences and
phrases (meaning relations between sentences, or between words and phrases)
(Fairclough, 2003).
Finally, like Fairclough (2003), we were interested in the “social research
themes” (p. 7) of globalization and neocolonialism. Thus, when interpreting the
content and the language of the texts, we used a postcolonial lens. Postcolonial
theory elucidates the issues of literacy and globalization most profoundly in its
recognition of imperialist domination of former colonized countries. We therefore
2015
paid special attention in our analysis and interpretation to how the content and
language upheld or challenged relationships of colonialist imperialism at work in
the present (Young, 2001).
DEFINING LITERACY
Dimension 1 of the Thomas (1993) and Thomas and Postlethwaite (1984)
framework focuses on the roles or purposes of schooling. Colonialist organiza-
tions tend to shape schooling in specific patterns to maintain, enforce, and per-
petuate colonialist rule. As such, Thomas advocates the use of a continuum to
determine the degree of colonialist or local control. This assumes that local con-
trol of schools, of curricula and resources, of literacy initiatives, and of instruc-
tional language(s) promotes positive outcomes and performance measures,
including increased learner participation, teacher retention, and improved mea-
sures of literacy competencies. We adapt this dimension to examine the nature,
purpose, or role of literacy as defined by UNESCO and the World Bank through
the documents we analyzed. We specifically sought to understand the following:
1. How do these organizations describe literacy and the goals of literacy?

2. What assumptions do these organizations hold about literacy?
We found that in these documents, the World Bank positions literacy primarily
in traditional functional terms related to the labor market and individual produc-
tivity. However, UNESCO’s definitions of literacy shift from a functional literacy
grounded in basic functioning and survival to a sociocultural perspective based
on personal and social empowerment and that understands literacy as embedded
in specific contexts requiring different practices.
Literacy as constructed by the World Bank remains firmly tied to the labor
market and productivity. For instance, 21 times, the World Bank document dis-
cussed the nature of functional literacy and how the report authors sought to mea-
sure increases in literacy in “functional literacy programs.” These literacy
programs followed traditional skills-oriented approaches toward literacy acquisi-
tion, in which literacy is defined as
the skills of (a) recording information of some kind in some code understood by the
person making the record and possibly by other persons in some or less permanent
form and (b) decoding the information so recorded. That is the essence of writing
and reading. (Oxenham et al., 2002, p. 8)
That decoding capability is then associated with livelihood training for functional
purposes. The authors state, “Livelihoods and literacy are now so closely entwined,
that it is no longer realistic to speak of two approaches there” (Oxenham et al.,
2002, p. 6).
2015
Moreover, this specific literacy is clearly meant to further individuals’ produc-

tivity. The document colocated the terms functional literacy and productivity by
their close proximity, semantic relations, and near-equal frequency of use: 21
times for functional literacy and 17 times for productivity. Productive use of
resources and efficient and effective management of funding were reiterated fre-
quently throughout the document. Oxenham et al. (2002) state that the report
authors attempted
to estimate the amount of instruction and practice a person needs to acquire suffi-
cient skill in writing, reading, and calculating to be able to go on to obtaining and
exchanging new and possibly complex information to improve the productivity of
her or his livelihood. (p. 8)
These functional literacy programs sought to foster “individual productivity”

(Oxenham et al., 2002, p. 27), “identify, develop, and manage opportunities”
(Oxenham et al., 2002, p. 28), and carry out “obligations more effectively” (Oxenham
et al., 2002, p. 29).
Literacy is also closely linked in this document to both community and indi-
vidual development. Frequent references were made to community development,
which belies an underlying assumption that literacy skills are closely tied to the
economic expansion of the community. It was expected that some degree of per-
sonal development would result from literacy activities—the individual, as a
result of undertaking some form of literacy and livelihood training, would be
better in some way. Of the 46 pages of the document, development was men-
tioned 64 times, averaging 1.3 times per page and highlighting the clear empha-
sis of this theme and the assumptions underlying it.
Although this document focuses mainly on functional literacy, a second way
of defining literacy was also present, but it appeared much less frequently. The
presence of and need for personal empowerment of the adult learners was men-
tioned, but only five times in the World Bank document. According to the report
of the functional adult literacy program in Rukungiri, Uganda, “focus group dis-
cussions discovered that the groups wanted to strengthen their literacy skills to
feel more confident and in control in understanding loan agreements and manag-
ing their savings and credit accounts” (Oxenham et al., 2002, p. 24). In this case,
confidence and self-concept were very important to the learners and, although not
the main goals of the program, were considered a welcome by-product. Another
program based in Dakar, Senegal, working with cotton farmers, combined func-
tional aspects of literacy training with aspects of Freire’s conscientization
approach. Literacy for self-management within the cooperatives required this
combination, which resulted in an approach tied to production and demonstrating
the ability to empower. The cotton farmers in the Senegal program recognized the
importance of literacy in agricultural production and improved management of
village affairs and so contributed more personally to the program, making it
2015
“potentially a powerful programme” (Millican, 1990, as cited in Oxenham et al.,

2002, p. 30).
UNESCO originally defined literacy in functional terms explicitly associated
with economics and the labor market: “The process and content of learning to read
and write to the preparation for work and vocational training, as well as a means
of increasing the productivity of the individual” (Rassool, 1999, p. 7). Although
the UNESCO document Literacy for Change includes multiple constructions of
literacy, it begins with this functional view of literacy. It notes that the definition
of literacy has changed through the years, from simply the ability to read and write
in any language to quantifiable measures of school completion. The document
suggests that the minimum schooling needed “in today’s complex society” is 6 to
8 years (Sharma, Literacy for Change, 2003, p. 45). Koïchiro Matsuura, present
director-general of UNESCO, characterizes literacy in the forward to Literacy—A
UNESCO Perspective (UNESCO, 2003a) in broader terms: “Literacy is about
more than reading and writing—it is about how we communicate in society. It is
about social practices and relationships, about knowledge, language, and culture”
(p. 1). Thus, in two documents published only 2 months apart, contradictions
appear in UNESCO’s representations of the concept of literacy.
These conflicting representations also occur within Literacy for Change. In
discussing worldwide illiteracy statistics, literacy was framed as functional illit-
eracy. In one program to promote literacy in rural areas, aspects of functional lit-
eracy were used—this program described literacy as inherently tied to livelihood,
as a “tool to acquire and use knowledge on health, income-generation, [and]
small-scale credit” (O’Malley, Literacy for Change, 2003b, para. 13). Shulie
Aktar, a local facilitator with a master’s degree in management, commented,
We don’t just give literacy only. We also provide cultural programmes and micro
credit. Members make regular savings and from the central fund created they give
loans to members to help them rear poultry, do tailoring, or other small business
activities. (O’Malley, Literacy for Change, 2003c, para. 15)
As such, a primary goal of this and similar programs was to demonstrate tangible
results to consortium donors that the communities can be self-sustaining.
Despite the strong economic aspects of these programs, sociocultural and
more critical views of literacy were also infused in UNESCO’s discourse, reflect-
ing a recent shift toward more expansive understandings of literacy focusing on
the disenfranchisement of those lacking basic literacy skills. In Literacy for
Change, UNESCO asserts literacy is freedom and can be a source of individual
and social change. O’Malley (Literacy for Change, 2003b) states that “increas-
ingly government donors and aid agencies are tying programmes to the eradica-
tion of poverty, rooting learning in the use of literacy in activities critical to
people’s lives, to maximize their motivation and the impact of the skills acquired”
(para. 8). O’Malley (Literacy for Change, 2003c) writes of Hira Aktar, a woman
2015
from Rogaghurampur, Bangladesh, who spoke of the male-dominated tradition in

her village that previously would have prohibited her from leaving her home:
“Through the use of literacy she has liberated herself from the constraints of
male-dominated traditions, as well as many aspects of poverty, and now her
husband asks her to borrow books for him to read” (para. 35). Moreover, learners
are encouraged to challenge the structures governing their lives and to use liter-
acy to transform their communities. In many of these more critical programs, “the
literacy activity starts with the development of the people’s own plans in a way
that demystifies the power of literacy, that shows it can be used meaningfully by
people to assert their voices” (David Archer, head of Action Aid, as cited in
O’Malley, Literacy for Change, 2003d, para. 4).
Dimension 5 of Thomas’s (1993) and Thomas and Postlethwaite’s (1984)
framework asks questions such as “What are the instructional objectives and con-
tent of the curriculum, and what teaching methods are used?” (Thomas &
Postlethwaite, 1984, p. 16). Although a full exploration of Dimension 5 is beyond
the scope of this article, we will briefly comment on curricular issues insofar as
they contribute to our understanding of Dimension 1, how the World Bank and
UNESCO define literacy.
Discussion of effective pedagogy permeated the UNESCO document Literacy
for Change. The UNESCO document describes its vision for how literacy
programs should be implemented; UNESCO supports
having flexible lesson and course completion times, learning material tailored to the
learner’s interests and culture, teachers or facilitators trained and supported in using
active learning methods, and learners having a say in the running of their own edu-
cation. (O’Malley, Literacy for Change, 2003a, para. 8)
Some UNESCO projects proactively use adaptations of Freire’s conscious-

ness-raising techniques in their pedagogy. In the REFLECT programs in
Bangladesh, for instance, participants make their own texts, representing their
own circumstances. These programs emphasize learners’ goals, providing them
some control over their learning, as recommended by sociocultural and critical
perspectives of literacy. The International Adult Literacy Survey (IALS) likewise
highlighted in its 2003 report on adult literacy skills (Organisation for Economic
Co-operation and Development [OECD], 2003) the inverse reaction when liter-
acy objectives failed to match learner-initiated purpose, even in countries with
compulsory schooling through grades twelve. The study noted that older individ-
uals’ literacy skills lapsed into functional illiteracy “because they did not use their
skills in a way that was relevant to them” (OECD, 2003, p. 45).
Furthermore, elements of postcolonial critique appear in one section of the
UNESCO document highlighting the imposition of colonialist languages and
instruction on indigenous populations and the implications for effective learning
environments. O’Malley (Literacy for Change, 2003f), commenting on the EFA
2015
campaign, which is one of the UN’s millennium development goals spearheaded

by UNESCO (UNESCO, 2006a), suggests that even if governments fulfill all of
EFA’s stated goals—establishing free primary education accessible to all children
and acquiring much needed supplies and teachers—this effort may fail because of
the colonialist systems of education that remain:
This is because state education systems in many developing countries have scarcely
developed pedagogically from those established by former colonial powers. . . .
Teaching often has more in common with army discipline, with rows of pupils
silently copying notes from the board, than an attempt to exploit a child’s natural
creativity and curiosity about the world as a route to learning. (O’Malley, Literacy
for Change, 2003f, para. 2)
As a result, O’Malley (Literacy for Change, 2003f) argues that schools become a
“place to fear rather than a joyful learning experience” (para. 3), giving students
another reason, beyond poverty itself, to discontinue school early. Thus, govern-
ments must contend with not only the excessively limited financial resources that
maintain and limit literacy and learning possibilities for their citizens, but the
form of education itself.
Although the World Bank document did not explicitly address pedagogi-
cal concerns, it did acknowledge unexpected outcomes related to learner self-
confidence and control. When learners were allowed more control in defining
curriculum, learner retention was higher. UNESCO’s document Literacy for
Change went further, however, stressing the connection between increasing local
control by teachers and learners over the curriculum, effective pedagogy, and per-
formance outcomes for both programs and learners.
EXAMINING FUNDING ISSUES

Another important dimension of education connected to neocolonialism is
funding. Dimension 6 of Thomas and Postlethwaite’s (1984) and Thomas’s
(1993) framework asks how adequately educational systems are financed and
what are the sources of financial support. In our adaptation of this dimension we
ask the following:
1. To what degree are curricula of literacy initiatives tied to stipulations from external
funding?
2. Who determines performance measures of literacy initiatives? To what extent are
these measures tied to stipulations from external funders?
As the foremost activist organization for worldwide literacy, UNESCO has

helped push two major worldwide literacy initiatives: EFA and the Literacy
Decade. EFA sought three principal objectives: access to free primary schooling of
acceptable quality for all children, elimination of gender disparities in schooling,
2015
and halving of adult illiteracy by 2015 (Sharma, Literacy for Change, 2003). The
Literacy Decade initiative (2003 to 2012) is a reinforcement initiative to remind
member countries and donors that funding is gravely needed to enact the EFA
objectives. UNESCO (2005) notes that 771 million adults currently are illiterate
and predicts illiteracy rates may actually increase in the 21st century despite pre-
vious declines. Because of the necessity of securing funding, financial issues reoc-
cur heavily in Literacy for Change. Of 24 pages dedicated to literacy, the need for
increased funding was directly brought out 17 times through discussions of the
amount of money that has or has not been pledged and how literacy programs are
failing to meet objectives because of a lack of sustained financial support.
The Donor Consortium for EFA met in November 2002, promising US$400
million rather than the US$700 million the Global Campaign for Education says
is needed. The World Bank and International Monetary Fund in particular
removed support in different locations because of serious governmental misallo-
cation of funds. “Poverty caused by foreign debt repayments, poor investments,
protracted civil wars, misplaced priorities, corruption and poor governance has
resulted in a relentless public spending on the school system [in Nairobi]”
(Kigotho, Literacy for Change, 2003, para. 1). Furthermore, in a briefing report,
the Global Campaign wrote, “Too many countries are falling through the gaps
because donors do not consider them to be politically strategic or because the
donors that do support them do not focus on basic education” (as cited in
O’Malley, Literacy for Change, 2003e, para. 10). As a result, 57 countries are not
likely to achieve universal primary education by 2015.
Given its focus on measuring illiteracy and literacy rates, UNESCO embodies
influential perspectives on literacy worldwide. Although its own documents
demonstrate conflicting representations, the inclusion of more critical literacy and
sociocultural perspectives on literacy suggests a means to undermine pervasive
colonialist practices of literacy education. UNESCO’s limited funding sources,
however, mandate its position as a liaison to other global funding organizations for
actual execution and implementation of literacy programs (Jones, 1998).
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

Thomas and Postlethwaite (1984) contend that educational systems in coun-
tries moving away from colonialism and toward political, economic, and cultural
independence are defined by self-determination in the purpose or role of education,
curriculum and instructional methodology, and the financing of the education sys-
tem. With regard to the purpose or role of education, in independent countries,
residents of the area or their representatives determine the purposes of education,
which are derived from the cultures of indigenous peoples of the regions and
which in turn serve the welfare of those residents. With regard to educational
financing, in independent countries, local residents or their representatives deter-
mine how the system will be financed, and the education system is paid for by
2015
local governments, local church groups, or local residents. In this final section of
our article, we offer a postcolonial critique of the ways in which these two arenas
of education are presented by UNESCO and the World Bank.
Barton (1994) posits that “every literacy program in the world, every literacy
initiative, every government statement, every act by an aid agency has behind it a
theory of language and also a theory about literacy” (p. 3). Furthermore, different
conceptions of what literacy is and how it is practiced “reflect and promote val-
ues, beliefs, assumptions, and practices which shape the way life is lived within
a given social milieu and, in turn, influence which interests are promoted or
undermined as a result of how life is lived there (Lankshear & McLaren, 1993,
pp. xvii-xviii). One can further ask how different conceptions of literacy enact
different standpoints on neocolonialism—what enactments of neocolonialism are
perpetuated in the ways UNESCO and the World Bank define literacy? UNESCO
is moving toward a more sociocultural way of viewing literacy. Examining their
views of literacy, then, might lead to the conclusion that UNESCO is helping fos-
ter a shift away from neocolonialism, as sociocultural perspectives on literacy
understand literacy as socially constructed and embedded in specific contexts and
thus move toward embracing multiple ways of knowing and are more likely to
embrace local definitions.
However, the World Bank’s definitions of literacy, firmly rooted in functional
literacy, help perpetuate neocolonialism. Although the World Bank does allow for
empowerment among learners, this appears as a beneficial by-product rather than
a key goal of literacy programs. Furthermore, in its effort to quantify literacy out-
comes, the World Bank clearly reinforces development models of economics and
trade such that the concept of development and its related productivity appeared
on nearly every page of the document. Functional literacy has been situated in the
context of labor-force training, economic development, and international compe-
tition: Functional literacy is “the process and content of learning to read and write
to the preparation for work and vocational training, as well as a means of increas-
ing the productivity of the individual” (as cited by Rassool, 1999, p. 7). In this
case, a good worker implies literacy at least at some level of functionality.
Postcolonialist critique emphasizes the maintenance of colonialist hegemony
through interconnections of economy and education, and our findings show that
funding issues are important determinants of neocolonialism. Even though
UNESCO’s definitions of literacy are moving its literacy programs away from neo-
colonialist models, that move cannot go very far when funding remains the way it is.
The funding of both programs reveals a strong link to neocolonialism. Stromquist
(2002) points out that many of the “supranational institutions” (p. 25) such as the
World Bank and UNESCO “faithfully reflect interests of the major industrialized
countries” (p. 8), which typically have dominant decision-making power in these
institutions. For instance, Group of Seven (G7) countries control 65% of the total
voting power in the World Bank (Stromquist, 2002). Although UNESCO is less
dominated by superpowers such as the G7 countries and has been called a “more
2015
representative” institution than the World Bank (Stromquist, 2002, p. 182), because
of recent funding practices (the fact, for instance, that the World Bank provides a sig-
nificant amount of extrabudgetary funding to UNESCO) and initiatives such as the
UN’s Global Compact, UNESCO is not functioning in as “autonomous and democ-
ratic” a manner as it could or ideally should (Stromquist, 2002, p. 183).
Although education has been seen as one of the principal measures by which
human security is established and maintained (Weisbrot, Baker, Kraev, & Chen,
2002), education is no longer considered a social commodity by which individu-
als might improve their lot; rather, it is now primarily a function of economic pol-
icy. As such, “education is not viewed as a right, a joy, a tool for liberation and
empowerment, but as an investment” (Brock-Utne, 2000, as cited by Punchi,
2001, p. 365). Within the framework of international agencies, the manner of
funding constitutes principal provisos regarding implementation of educational
programs, especially literacy (Jones, 1998). On one hand, UNESCO relies on
levies imposed on governments, which in turn results in grave funding shortages.
“Accordingly, the cash-strapped UNESCO can afford expansive rhetoric it need
not match with funded operations” (Jones, 1998, p. 151). On the other hand, the
World Bank finances literacy initiatives through its loanable capital, which con-
spicuously necessitates repayment. “We cannot understand World Bank educa-
tion policy independently of its position as a bank” (Jones, 1998, p. 152). Thus
literacy has in some ways indeed become a more economic, management issue
rather than the means for social and personal improvement.
Although the funding structures of these two international organizations differ
significantly—UNESCO draws largely from contributions from its member
states, and the World Bank from its status as a financial institution—the two are
complexly intertwined, sometimes competitively and sometimes cooperatively, in
their efforts toward supporting international literacy initiatives. The fact that
UNESCO must frequently rely on the World Bank for extrabudgetary funding
diminishes its once primary status as the foremost literacy organization globally.
Although Heyneman (2003) has called for more collective enterprises between
the UNESCO and the World Bank—noting UNESCO’s professional expertise in
education and literacy and the World Bank’s predominating funding allocations—
this has yet to happen. And although there has been increasing social activism
centered on democratizing the World Bank and reclaiming UNESCO as a more
inclusive and independent institution, lasting change has yet to be realized
(Stromquist, 2002). As a result of the disproportionate funding sources and the
complex power dynamic therein, the two organizations collude in continuing and
reinforcing neocolonialist paradigms worldwide.
Moreover, the impetus of globalization impels nations to conform to its rules or
“leave participants who refuse to ‘play ball’ isolated, and yes, at a comparative dis-
advantage” (Jones, 1998, p. 146). However, even for developing countries, “play-
ing ball” does not diminish the serious repercussions incurred through debt.
International funding agencies, such as the International Monetary Fund, the
2015
World Bank, and less so, UNESCO, manage to dictate international policies
regarding education and literacy programs through stipulations placed on loans
and grants that emphasize standardization, efficiency, and measures of productiv-
ity (Punchi, 2001). Mandates placed on loans and grants by these international
agencies essentially remove control of education and literacy programs from
national governments to the agencies themselves and even decrease the likelihood
of improving literacy globally (Canen & Grant, 1999). As these agencies are pre-
dominantly Western institutions, they reproduce Western ideas of education across
the globe (Stromquist, 2002). In fact, Stromquist (2002) asserts that “there is an
ongoing globalization of educational policy and practice, and it is the Western par-
adigm of what constitutes good educational practice that prevails” (p. 186).
Despite achievement of national sovereignty, most tricontinental countries sig-
nificantly rely on their former colonialist rulers and other Western funding agen-
cies for economic support. As such, postcolonialists contend that unless there is
real economic independence, true national independence is a falsehood.
Moreover, in the neoliberal discourses of globalization, Western capitalism
enforces particular economic structures across the globe. Specifically, countries
must accede to deregulation, privatization, and accountability measures that
emphasize economic productivity and deemphasize social welfare programs,
including education and heath care, or be left out of the global market altogether.
However, although neoliberalism has a huge impact on education and develop-
ment across the globe, institutions such as the World Bank refuse to even
acknowledge neoliberalism as a “legitimate construct” or to see it as a significant
part of the way the world currently operates (Stromquist, 2002, p. 25).
Globalization is not simply an economic issue; it is an educational issue. Given
the limited funding sources of UNESCO, limited resources of many tricontinental
countries, and the organization of the World Bank as a primary financial lending
institution that likewise funds literacy initiatives, the forces of globalization and
literacy have become inextricably linked. What we see here is a continuity and
congruency between the World Bank’s definitions of literacy and its commensu-
rate funding sources. Just as neoliberal globalization encourages free-market reg-
ulation and productivity, the World Bank favors literacy that promotes economic
productivity, in contrast to more critical or socially constructed literacies.
Although UNESCO in its rhetoric is shifting away from colonialist control of
literacy practices toward local control, there is tension or contradiction in its ability
to raise and supply funds for these literacy initiatives. Thus, although a postcolo-
nial perspective would applaud these efforts, it would also caution the sustain-
ability of such efforts, given UNESCO’s funding dilemmas. As a result, we see a
disconnect between UNESCO’s funding sources and its promising shift toward
sociocultural definitions of literacy. Because it relies on other funding sources
and donations, there remain colonialist influences on the propagation and imple-
mentation of literacy initiatives outwardly sponsored through UNESCO.
2015
Therefore, we assert the powerful connection between literacy, the way liter-
acy programs are funded globally, and the forces of globalization. For progressive
shifts over literacy from colonialist Western control to local governance to sig-
nificantly continue worldwide, financial structures must be reorganized. Local
governments need the economic freedom to make wise decisions on the behalf of
their own populace, rather than bending to Western mandates over free labor mar-
kets. Minus this, we contend both organizations remain unduly entrenched as
neocolonialist enterprises, the World Bank only more explicitly so.
REFERENCES
Altbach, P. G., & Kelly, G. P. (1978). Education and colonialism. New York: Longman.
Banya, K., & Elu, J. (2001). The World Bank and financing higher education in sub-Saharan Africa.
Higher Education, 42, 1-34.
Barton, D. (1994). Globalization and diversification: Two opposing influences on local literacies.
Language and Education, 8(1/2), 3-7.
Bonal, X. (2004). Is the World Bank education policy adequate for fighting poverty? Some evidence
from Latin America. International Journal of Educational Development, 24, 649-666.
Bray, M. (1993). Education and the vestiges of colonialism: Self-determination, neocolonialism and
dependency in the South Pacific. Comparative Education, 29(3), 333-348.
Brookfield, H. C. (1972). Colonialism, development and independence: The case of the Melanesian
Islands of the South Pacific. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Canen, A., & Grant, N. (1999). Intercultural perspective and knowledge for equity in the Mercosul
countries: Limits and potentials in educational policies. Comparative Education, 35(3), 319-330.
Carnoy, M. (1974). Education as cultural imperialism. New York: David McKay.
Chilisa, B. (2005). Educational research within postcolonial Africa: A critique of HIV/AIDS research
in Botswana. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 18(6), 659-684.
Cresswell, J. W. (1998). Qualitative inquiry and research design. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
de Castell, S., Luke, A., & Egan, K. (Eds.). (1986). Literacy, society, and schooling. Cambridge, UK:
Cambridge University Press.
Fairclough, N. (2003). Analysing discourse: Textual analysis for social research. London: Routledge.
Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York: Continuum.
Glaser, B. G., & Straus, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory. Chicago: Aldine.
Graff, H. J. (1979). The literacy myth: Literacy and social structure in the nineteenth-century city.
New York: Academic Press.
Gramsci, A. (1992). Prison notebooks. New York: Columbia University Press.
Harrison, G. (2005). The World Bank, governance and theories of political action in Africa. The
British Journal of Politics and International Relations, 7(2), 240-260.
Heyneman, S. P. (2003). The history and problems in the making of education policy at the World
Bank 1960-2000. International Journal of Educational Development, 23, 315-337.
Jaggar, A. M. (2002). A feminist critique of the alleged Southern debt. Hypatia, 17(4), 119-142.
Jones, P. W. (1998). Globalization and internationalism: Democratic prospects for world education.
Comparative Education, 34(2), 143-155.
Kempner, K., & Loureiro, A. (2002). The global politics of education: Brazil and the World Bank.
Higher Education, 43(3), 331-354.
Kigotho, W. (2003, April). Literacy in schools—The floodgates open. The New Courier: Literacy for
Change, 46-47. Retrieved January 30, 2006, from http://portal.unesco.org/en/ev.php-URL_ID=
10516&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html
2015
Lankshear, C., & Knobel, M. (2006). New literacies: Everyday practices and classroom learning
(2nd ed.). Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.
Lankshear, C., & McLaren, P. L. (Eds.). (1993). Critical literacy: Politics, praxis, and the postmod-
ern. Albany: State Univeristy of New York Press.
Luke, A. (2003). Literacy and the other: A sociological approach to literacy research and policy in
multilingual societies. Reading Research Quarterly, 38(1), 132-141.
Maruatona, T. (2004). State hegemony and the planning and implementation of literacy education in
Botswana. International Journal of Educational Development, 24, 53-65.
Maruatona, T., & Cervero, R. M. (2004). Adult literacy education in Botswana: Planning between
reproduction and resistance. Studies in the Education of Adults, 36(2), 235-251.
Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
Milligan, J. A. (2004). Democratization or neocolonialism? The education of Muslims under US mil-
itary occupation, 1903-20. History of Education, 33(4), 451-467.
Mudimbe, V. Y. (1994). The idea of Africa. London: James Currey.
Mulenga, D. C. (2001). Mwalimu Julius Nyerere: A critical review of his contributions to adult edu-
cation and postcolonialism. International Journal of Lifelong Education, 20(6), 446-470.
Oduaran, A. (2000). Globalization and lifelong education: Reflection on some challenges for Africa.
International Journal of Lifelong Education, 19(3), 266-280.
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2003). The PISA 2003 assessment
framework: Mathematics, reading, science and problem solving knowledge and skills. Paris:
Author.
O’Malley, B. (2003a, April). Literacy for a better world. The New Courier: Literacy for Change,
41-42. Retrieved January 30, 2006, from http://portal.unesco.org/en/ev.php-URL_ID=10506&
URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html
O’Malley, B. (2003b, April). Literacy in communities—New frontiers. The New Courier: Literacy for
Change, 54-55. Retrieved January 30, 2006, from http://portal.unesco.org/en/ev.php-URL_ID=
10535&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html
O’Malley, B. (2003c, April). Literacy in communities—Village revolutions. The New Courier:
Literacy for Change, 56-59. Retrieved January 30, 2006, from http://portal.unesco.org/en/ev
.php-URL_ID=10536&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html
O’Malley, B. (2003d, April). Literacy in communities—Voices of change. The New Courier: Literacy
for Change, 60-61. Retrieved January 30, 2006, from http://portal.unesco.org/en/ev
O’Malley, B. (2003e, April). Literacy in schools—Donors drag their heels. The New Courier: Literacy
O’Malley, B. (2003f, April). Literacy in schools—The pleasure factor. The New Courier: Literacy for
Change, 50-52. Retrieved January 30, 2006, from http://portal.unesco.org/en/ev
Oxenham, J., Diallo, A. H., Katahoire, A. R., Petkova-Mwangi, A., & Sall, O. (2002). Skills and
literacy training for better livelihoods: A review of approaches and experiences. World Bank,
Human Development Section, Africa Region.
Punchi, L. (2001). Resistance towards the language of globalization: The case of Sri Lanka.
International Review of Education, 47(3/4), 361-378.
Quigley, B. A. (1997). Rethinking literacy education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Rassool, N. (1999). Literacy for sustainable development in the age of information. Clevendon, UK:
Multilingual Matters.
Sandlin, J. A. (2004). “It’s all up to you”: How welfare-to-work educational programs construct work-
force success. Adult Education Quarterly, 54(2), 89-104.
2015
Sharma, Y. (2003). Literacy: A global problem—Written out of the script. The New Courier: Literacy
Spivak, G. (1988). Can the subaltern speak? In L. Grossberg & C. Nelson (Eds.), Marxism and the
interpretation of culture (pp. 271-313). New York: Routledge.
Stromquist, N. P. (2002). Education in a globalized world. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.
Thomas, R. M. (1993). Education in the South Pacific: The context for development. Comparative
Education, 29(3), 233-248.
Thomas, R. M., & Postlethwaite, T. N. (1984). Schooling in the Pacific Islands. Oxford, UK: Pergamon.
United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization. (2003a). Literacy: A UNESCO
perspective. Paris: Author.
United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization. (2003b, April). Literacy for change
[Special issue]. The New Courier. Retrieved January 27, 2006, from http://portal.unesco.org/
en/ev.php-URL_ID=10355&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html
United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization. (2005). Literacy. Paris: Author.
Retrieved January 26, 2006, from http://portal.unesco.org/education/en/ev.php-URL_ID=40338&
URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html
United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization. (2006a). Education for all. Paris:
Author. Retrieved September 22, 2006, from http://www.unesco.org/education/efa/
United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization. (2006b). Summary of the budget:
32 C/5 (2004-2005). Paris: Author. Retrieved September 18, 2006, from http://portal.unesco.org/
en/ev.php-URL_ID=14072&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html
Vavrus, F. (2005). Adjusting inequality: Education and structural adjustment policies in Tanzania.
Harvard Educational Review, 75(2), 174-201.
Vawda, A. Y., Moock, P., Gittinger, J. P., & Patrinos, H. A. (2003). Economic analysis of World Bank
education projects and project outcomes. International Journal of Educational Development, 23,
645-680.
Walter, P. (2005). Literacy practices in development: An ethnographic study of women in
Northeastern Thailand. Studies in the Education of Adults, 37(1), 63-77.
Watson, K. (1994). Technical and vocational education in developing countries: Western paradigms
and comparative methodology. Comparative Education, 30(2), 85-97.
Weisbrot, M., Baker, D., Kraev, E., & Chen, J. (2002). The scorecard on globalization 1980-2000: Its
consequences for economic and social well-being. Journal of Health Services, 32(2), 229-253.
Young, R. (2001). Postcolonialism: An historical introduction. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
2015

Cartilla de Narrativa Audiovisual

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Cartilla de Narrativa Audiovisual

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

LITERACY FOR WHAT?

Keywords: adult literacy; critical literacy; international literacy organizations; postcolonial

*This article was accepted under the previous editors.

CORRINE M. WICKENS is a doctoral candidate in the Department of Teaching, Learning, and

According to the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural

EDUCATION, NEOCOLONIALISM, AND POSTCOLONIAL THEORY

a thoroughgoing, comprehensive and deliberate penetration of a local or ‘residentiary’

Altbach and Kelly (1978) distinguish between three kinds of colonialism:

According to Bray (1993), schools in colonial settings were “primarily designed

characterized by ideological processes aimed at undermining the authenticity of the

• Dimension 1: The purpose of schooling

Although this framework was originally created to examine formal schooling

1. How do these organizations describe literacy and the goals of literacy?

Moreover, this specific literacy is clearly meant to further individuals’ produc-

These functional literacy programs sought to foster “individual productivity”

“potentially a powerful programme” (Millican, 1990, as cited in Oxenham et al.,

from Rogaghurampur, Bangladesh, who spoke of the male-dominated tradition in

Some UNESCO projects proactively use adaptations of Freire’s conscious-

campaign, which is one of the UN’s millennium development goals spearheaded

EXAMINING FUNDING ISSUES

As the foremost activist organization for worldwide literacy, UNESCO has

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

You might also like