Page 1 of 20

The Conceptualisation of Quality Education in Zambia Outline of the dissertation submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of

Master of Arts in Education and International Development at the

Institute of Education, University of London.

Maurits W. Spoelder

2010

Abstract

This research paper attempts to generate insight and clarification into the conceptualisations of

quality education in Zambia. Justification comes from the idea that successful quality improvement

needs a shared vision among educational stakeholders. The rationale for a focus on the development

of a quality education system is twofold and based upon its influence on economic growth and

increased social justice. Zambia’s quality education level, based on cognitive test and examination

scores, is low in comparison to other African countries. The research study adopted a qualitative

methodology with a grounded theory approach. Data is collect from 17 national and international

stakeholders in education in April to June 2009. The research concludes that educational

stakeholders hold markedly different conceptualisations on quality education. The pedagogical

process of teaching and learning is generally ignored by the national stakeholders. It is argued that an

amelioration of economic approaches, human rights legislation and broader ideas of social justice is

possible. As an evaluate tool, the comprehensive multidimensional model of the Capability Approach

offers new potential to measure educational quality in the socio-economic and educational context

of Zambia. It should be acknowledged by all stakeholders that to achieve equity in education,

different groups, sometimes, have to be treated unequal. Although this belief runs counter to the

Government of the Republic of Zambia saying of “One Zambia, One Nation,” the current economical

and human resource situation does not allow the country to lift the whole education system at once.

1. Introduction

The debate about quality education in

international development has evolved over

the last two decades. The Education for All

(EFA) movement (UNESCO, 1990) and the

adoption of the Millennium Development Goal

(MDG) 2 on Universal Primary Education (UPE)

led to a focus on providing basic education for

all children. Yet, an expansion of the

education system does not necessarily mean

an increase in quality (UNESCO, 2004, p. 77).

The rationale for a focus on the development

of a quality education system is twofold and

based upon its influence on economic growth

and increased social justice. Recent studies

find that economic growth is not only

associated with the number of years of

schooling but more importantly with

educational quality and cognitive skill

development (Barro, 2001; Hanushek, 2005;

Hanushek, 2009; Hanushek and Wöβmann,

2007; Neri, 2001). The building of a quality

educational system is therefore a critical

challenge imperative on its own and should be

the number one development priority

(Verspoor, 2005). A low internal efficiency of

the education system consumes about 25% of

the scarce educational, financial and human

Page 2 of 20

resources allocated to primary education in

the Sub-Saharan African (SSA) region

(Dembélé and Oviawe, 2007).

Zambia is an example were enrolment rates in

primary education have increased

considerably since 2000. Unlike other SSA

countries the quality of education, based on

national and international cognitive test

scores, has not declined. This is a remarkable

achievement in itself, as there has been an

increase in pupil teacher, book, and classroom

ratios. Zambia’s quality level is however low in

comparison to other African countries (IOB,

2008; Mingat, 2005; Postlethwaite, 2004;

Verspoor, 2008b). Children who complete

primary schooling have not gained sufficient

rational reflection and basic competency skills

to live a flourishing life.

To develop a quality education system that

reduces poverty and improves the quality of

life by extending capabilities and empower

individuals, a broad consensus among the

national and international education

development community is essential. This

study develops insight and clarification into

the national and international

conceptualisations of quality education in

Zambia. Justification for the research comes

from the idea that successful quality

improvement has two elements. ‘The first is a

shared vision among educators in the country

on the process of teaching and learning, which

makes explicit the pedagogical assumptions

regarding how children learn, what level of

performance is expected and which

instructional strategies are effective under

which conditions’ (Fullan, 2000 in Verspoor

(2005, p.324)). This then creates the

groundwork for development which will guide

the “what” of a quality improvement

education program. The second is a strategy

of implementation of the reform program

which is of the essence for quality education

to occur. This research will focus on the first

point of creating a shared vision to move

towards the development of education reform

and improved quality EFA. Ownership and

efficiency of aid are important but can only be

achieved if there is harmonisation between all

stakeholders, clarification on the concept of

quality education and agreement on the way

forward.

2. Untangling the concept of

quality in education

Quality as an important aspect of education

has been much debated but less agreed on.

Quality education is clearly a good thing but

it’s also elusive, difficult to measure and

dependent on the perspective of a person in a

context. The idea that education is something

which is reliant on standardised examinations

and educational inputs is outdated. The input-

output model developed during the Coleman

(Coleman et al., 1966) and Plowden reports

(1967) has been replaced by an input-process-

output model which influences schooling in its

context all of which affects educational

outcomes. A critical understanding of

education quality must therefore be grounded

in an analysis of local realities and broader

historical, socio-economic, political, and

cultural contexts (Tikly and Barrett, 2007).

But what is it that defines quality in education

these days? Adams (1993) has attempted to

define quality by drawing distinctions

between efficiency, effectiveness, equity and

quality. He identifies multiple meanings of

quality education and attempts to measure

them. Also Stephens (Hawes and Stephens,

1990; Stephens, 1990; Stephens, 2003)

presented a four pillars approach to

educational quality: relevance, efficiency,

‘something special’ and inclusivity. Stephens

focuses his approach at the classroom level.

Both Hawes and Stephens (1990) argue that

Page 3 of 20

quality education should be relevant to

context, need, and humanity. Education

should also be efficient in setting standards,

meeting these standards and improving them.

Quality education should add something

special which goes beyond the usual

expectations of the school and quality

education should be inclusive to all,

irrespective of gender, ability, or wealth

(Stephens, 2003, p. 5). The four pillars of

Stephens (2003) are in line with those of

Adams (1993) and within the discussion on

educational quality and international

development it becomes increasingly clear

that if we are to improve educational quality

what is required is to reach beyond the focus

on inputs to address the key processes of

learning (Samoff, 2007b).

2.1 Traditions within quality education

and development

Within the quality discourse on education and

development there are fundamentally two

traditions that have developed since the

1960’s (Table 1). The traditions represent

wider approaches to educational development

and are related to major development

theories. Distinctions are also made between

those that are more attentive to wider social

relations, inequality, and the need to go

beyond education and those that emphasise

the connection between education and

economic growth (Unterhalter, 2008). These

traditions have grown up together and are to

an extent interdependent (Barrett et al.,

2006).

There is the ‘economic policy’ view of

education which uses quantitative measurable

inputs and outputs of learning. The common

measurement of educational output in the

‘economist’ view is student achievement on

basic cognitive tests as the 3 R’s of reading,

writing and arithmetic. Definitions of quality in

World Bank reports often appear to be closely

linked with learning outcomes (Das et al.,

2004; Fuller, 1986; Independent Evaluation

Group, 2006; Lockheed et al., 1991). Quality

education is further defined by the level of

input. Quality is said to be high when the

school has highly qualified teachers, small

class sizes, enough textbooks, motivated

teachers, classroom discipline and so on

(Mingat and Tan, 1986). The economist view is

strongly influenced by and closely related to

Human Capital Theory (HCT).

The other perspective is the ‘humanist

educationalist’ view on education. The

humanist tradition emphasises educational

processes and uses qualitative research

approaches to measure the quality level.

Judgements of quality are based on what

happens in schools and in the classroom

between the teacher and learner. It is

believed that context and culture strongly

influence the process of learning. Basic

cognitive skills and general knowledge are

considered important but schools are

furthermore seen as a place where learners

acquire attitudes and cultural values (Barrett

et al., 2006).

Quality

Paradigm

Research Focus Evaluative

focus

Learning

tradition

Development

theory

Economist School

effectiveness

School Input-Output Behaviourist Human Capital

Theory

Humanist School

Improvement

Classroom Process Humanist Human

Development/

Human Rights

Table 1: Overview of quality, learning, and development traditions

Page 4 of 20

The ‘humanist educationalist’ view is linked to

social human development and the capability

approach which has been pioneered by Sen

(1992; 1999) and Nussbaum (2000; 2006).

While different definitions of the two

traditions are used, distinctions between

these two groups are often referred to within

the international literature. Fuller and Clarke

(1994, p. 120) differentiate the two groups

naming them ‘policy mechanics’ and

‘classroom culturalists’. Riddell (2008, p. 13)

distinguishes the two groups calling them

‘economists’ and ‘educationalists’.

Each of these contrasting approaches is

associated with a large international

organisation in the field of education and

development (Barrett et al., 2006, p. 3). The

‘economist policy’ view dominates the

educational thinking of the World Bank and

IMF that have to calculate the rate of return

and justify their loans for educational

development. United Nations (UN) agencies

like UNICEF and UNESCO, and the majority of

the Non-Governmental Organisations (NGO’s)

take a more ‘humanist’ stand on education.

2.2 Factors influencing educational

quality in developing countries

The long history of research into factors

influencing educational quality, together with

the different conceptualisations by

economists and humanists on the concept of

quality education makes it difficult to present

a definitive list of factors that might work in a

developing context such as Zambia or

elsewhere. Riddell (2008, p. 20) points out

that there are no blueprints and that ‘lessons

from other countries are valuable when

considering different pathways in a particular

country, but without local interrogation of

particular contexts, it is not possible to either

accept or dismiss quality factors.’ The

differences in context within countries is

therefore of critical importance (Schubert,

2005), as inequalities between different

groups in the same country are often bigger

than between developing countries

themselves (UNESCO, 2008, pp. 123-125).

However, numerous reviews on school

effectiveness have been published with regard

to industrialised settings (Sammons, Hillman

and Mortimore, 1995; Scheerens, 1992;

Teddlie and Reynolds, 2000) and for

developing countries (Boissiere, 2004; Fuller

and Clarke, 1994; Hanushek, 1995; Heneveld,

1994; Lockheed and Levin, 1993). Results from

industrialised countries converge around the

importance of five characteristics: (I) strong

educational leadership; (II) emphasis on

acquiring basic skills; (III) an orderly and

secure environment; (IV) high expectations of

pupil attainment; (V) and frequent assessment

of pupil progress (UNESCO, 2004). It is

however important to note that the marginal

efficiency of different inputs is likely to be

greater in ‘developing’ countries than in

‘industrialised’ countries because of the

scarcity of resources (Riddell, 2008, p. 18).

The Association for the Development of

Education in Africa (ADEA) presented seven

pillars of quality improvement (Verspoor,

2005, pp. 323-343): (I) create the opportunity

to learn; (II) improve instructional practice;

(III) manage the challenge of equity; (IV)

increase school autonomy and flexibility; (V)

nurture community support; (VI) ensure a

realistic financial framework; (VII) and respond

to HIV/ AIDS and conflict situations. It is

argued that these seven pillars should be at

the heart of the national strategic framework

to improve education. These pillars are

however context specific and can only be

indicative, as every country needs to consider

their own financial resources and demands.

Page 5 of 20

Other reviews of factors influencing

educational quality and effectiveness in

developing countries have been prepared

(Boissiere, 2004; UNESCO, 2004). But as

Boissiere (2004, p. 27) argues in his review of

research ‘firm conclusions specified in great

detail across many countries are not really

feasible, since the research literature shows

how much policy interventions depend upon

context and history.’ I do therefore not find it

useful to go into further detail about factors

influencing quality and refer to Riddell

(Riddell, 2008), Yu (2007), and the EdQual

consortium (Barrett, 2009; Barrett et al.,

2007; Barrett et al., 2006; Tikly and Barrett,

2007).

However, a cautionary note has to be made

about the contemporary debate on pedagogy

(Alexander, 2008; Hardman et al., 2009; Leach

and Moon, 2008). The importance of the

teacher on learning is recognized by a broad

literature (Global Campaign For Education,

2006; McKenzie and Santiago, 2005; Schwille,

Dembélé and Schubert, 2007; UIS, 2006). It is

however argued by Alexander (2008) that the

generalised frameworks used by international

agencies for measuring quality are still not

focusing on the teaching learning process or

pedagogy at all. Instead monitoring of quality

is still highly influenced by an input and output

approach or the use of proxies for the learning

processes. A neglect of international

pedagogical research and a fundamental

confusion about the term quality, its

measurement, and indicators are problems

that we need to face to get to the heart of

improving the quality education situation.

2.3 Education and wider development

goals

Within the education and development

discourse there is a shift taking place from an

economic to a more humanist stand. This

development is well described by Johnson ed.

(2008) who links quality education to equality

and democracy. It is important as educators to

know that whatever view we hold, ‘by working

to make classrooms and schools ‘better’ in

terms of relevant, efficient, creative and

inclusive learning environments we

are.....contributing to the broader, social

efforts to improve the quality of life

(Stephens, 2003, p. 6).’ This brings us back to

the rationale for a good quality education

system for economic growth, as argued by the

economists, and to social justice, as outlined

by the humanists.

However, due to the international

development discussion on aid effectiveness

(OECD and DAC, 2005; 2008) there is an

increased understanding that a relevant

quality education system should contribute to

socio-economic development and wider

development goals such as equality, human

rights, controlling the HIV/AIDS pandemic,

social justice, and democracy. Education is

therefore part of a comprehensive poverty

reduction strategy outlined in Zambia’s Fifth

National Development Plan (FNDP) (GRZ,

2006). The link of a quality education system

to wider development goals has important

implications. Equality of opportunity is at the

heart of social justice theory and a democratic

society. Expansion of an education system

without the full participation of all the

members of society is seen as partial

development (Farrell, 2007; Welch, 2000).

Zambia and all the nations that adopted the

EFA Framework for Action, are therefore not

only confronted with the challenge of

achieving good quality UPE, but also with a

challenge to achieve improved equity, and

equal opportunity to learn (Verspoor, 2008b,

p. 18). The contemporary debate within

quality education and its relationship to

international development thus links

education quality to equity, to equal

opportunities to learn and even to a person’s

Page 6 of 20

‘ability to reach a valuable state of living’ (Sen,

1993, p. 30; Sen, 1999). Quality education

cannot be just for the few, it needs to be

quality Education for All.

2.4 Frameworks for quality education

Multiple frameworks on quality education in

developing contexts have been developed

over the years (Beeby, 1966; Hawes and

Stephens, 1990; Pigozzi, 2008; UNESCO, 2004;

Verspoor, 2005). However, a broad holistic

view on quality education development

embedded in a political, cultural and

economic context is, among others, taken up

by UNICEF and UNESCO. UNICEF’s quality

framework consists of five characteristics:

learners, environments, content, processes

and outcomes (UNICEF, 2000, p. 4). UNESCO

(2004) expanded UNICEFs definition of quality

education in its EFA Global Monitoring Report

(GMR) of 2005, which led to the quality

framework in Figure 1. The quality

frameworks of UNICEF and UNESCO are

unique as they are based on education as a

human right. A rights based approach has

important implications for both the content

and processes which may lead to quality

education. The learning content includes areas

such as peace education; improved quality of

life; a humanist response to the HIV/AIDS

pandemic; literacy; and teacher education

(Pigozzi, 2006).

3.0 Quality Education in

Zambia

Zambia was hit hard by the world economic

crisis of the 1970s. The government was

forced to cut the education budget and

consequently the sector became underfunded

(MoE, 2007a; White and Dijkstra, 2003, p.

426). In 2000, the Government spent 2% of its

Gross Domestic Product (GDP) on education.

Since then education expenditure as a

Figure 1: UNESCO framework to understand educational quality

Source: UNESCO (2004, p. 36)

Page 7 of 20

percentage of GDP has grown steadily to 3.6%

in 2006 (IOB, 2008; MoE, 2007b). Around 2%

of GDP is going to the primary school level

(UNESCO, 2008). Notwithstanding this effort,

the funding level is still lower than three

comparative countries (Kenya, Malawi and

Uganda) where the educational expenditure is

4% to 5.5% of GDP. Zambia devotes 15% of its

domestic discretionary budget to education

(GRZ, 2007; UNESCO, 2008). As a result of

neglect, the education system came to a

standstill. Zambia’s HIV/AIDS crisis

furthermore undermined development of the

country and its educational system resulting in

teacher absenteeism and attrition and causing

a dramatic increase in orphans and vulnerable

children (OVC) (Grassly et al., 2003; Ramos,

2007; Robson and Sylvester, 2007; Visser-

Valfrey et al., 2008).

As a result of long term

underinvestment total enrolment between

1990 and 2000 hardly grew and lagged behind

the population growth (IOB, 2008). Still, the

primary net enrolment rate in 1999 was 68%

and therefore above SSA average (UNESCO,

2008). On the quality level, the literacy rate of

the population deteriorated. In 2001, it is

estimated that 75% of the children who left

primary school were illiterate (World Bank,

2001, p. 70). International comparisons of

learning achievement with other SSA

countries show that Zambia scores relatively

low. The SACMEQ I and II studies illustrate

that Zambia’s literacy scores are declining and

that they are doing poorly in comparison to

other SSA countries (Postlethwaite, 2004, p.

8). Another study by Verspoor (2008b) shows

that Zambia scores below the average of other

African countries (Table 2).

Table 2: Percentage of correct answers on math and language tests of fourth graders

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

Nigeria

Zanzibar

Gambia

Niger

Zambia

Côte d'Ivoire

Togo

Senegal

Burkina Faso

Namibia

South Africa

Mali

Malawi

Botswana

Cameroon

Zimbabwe

Madagascar

Uganda

Mauritius

Morocco

Kenya

Tunisia

MLA-Equivalent Test Scores (% correct)

Source: Verspoor (2008b, p. 16)

Page 8 of 20

Verspoor used Mingat’s (2005) calculations of

data from UNESCO’s Monitoring Learning

Achievement (MLA) project, and

supplemented this with data from the

CONFEMEN-PASEC, TIMMS, and SACMEQ

assessments. Results show an average of

51.6% which indicates that pupils in Africa

acquire only half of the target content

(Mingat, 2005, p. 112). Zambia’s scores are

way below the average with 43.3%. Mingat

further points out that the variation between

countries from 40% to 70% is high. These

examples draw attention to the sheer scale

and complexity of the quality education

challenge. Millions of children attend primary

school, many for several years, but often

without mastering basic skills (Figure 2)

(UNESCO, 2008, p. 109).

Still, there are positive points to mention. The

introduction of the SWAP created the financial

preconditions for large scale investments in

basic education that led to the abolition of

primary school fees in 2002 (Donge van, 2007;

IOB, 2008). In 2000, there were approximately

5,300 basic schools in Zambia.

In 2006 this number had increased to more

than 8,000 (with the largest growth coming

from community schools). The total number of

classrooms increased from 25,000 to 35,000.

The MoE distributed 1.4 million books. The

total number of teachers increased by 35%,

from 37,000 in 2000 to 57,000 in 2007 (IOB,

2008, p. 80). In addition, gender parity in

primary education was achieved with a GDI

(F/M) of 1.03 in 2006 (IOB, 2008; UNESCO,

2008, p. 99), drop-out rates have been seen to

decline to around 2.3%, and completion rates

for grade 7 have gone up to 88% in 2007

(UNESCO and UIS, 2009). It should be noted

however that the primary school exam in

grade 7 is a non fail exam, and that the

government introduced free examinations at

the grade 7 level as a pro poor policy

intervention.

The investments did not only contribute to

increased amounts of teachers, textbooks,

and classrooms. They also induced new

enrolments. A midterm review of the Ministry

of Education Sector Plan (MoESP), an

investment programme from 2003-2007,

revealed that investments did not meet its

Figure 2: The quality challenge in Zambia: Enrolment, completion, and learning.

10094

88

30

100

68 67

30

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Cohort NER Completion Learning

Primary 2007

Primary 1999

Source: UNESCO and UIS (2009), UNESCO (2008), IOB (2008)

Page 9 of 20

infrastructure targets and that the sector

could not keep pace with the exponential

growth of the system (Copenhagen

Development Consulting, 2007).

From the beginning of the Basic Education

Sub-Sector Investment Programme (BESSIP) in

1999 up to end of the MoESP in 2007 total

enrolment in primary education increased by

1 million pupils from 1.6 to 2.7 million (IOB,

2008; UNESCO, 2008). The Pupil Teacher Ratio

(PTR) increased slightly from 47:1 in 1999 to

49:1 in 2007 for primary level and from 23:1 in

1999 to 32:1 in 2006 on secondary level

(UNESCO, 2008; UNESCO and UIS, 2009;

Verspoor, 2008a). By combining primary and

junior secondary you get a PTR of 44:1 on the

basic education level. The pupil classroom

ratio is 79:1 (IOB, 2008, p. 74). It should be

clear that the PTR, pupil classroom ratio, and

pupil teacher contact time affect the quality

and learning outcomes of the pupils.

Therefore IOB (2008) concludes that these

investment policies undermined its own

success because more teachers and more

classrooms attract new entrants.

But what effect did the policy interventions of

BESSIP and MoESP have on the quality of

education? A recent study by the Policy and

Operations Evaluation Department (IOB, 2008)

of the Dutch Ministry of Foreign Affairs

revealed that the quality of education is still

low. IOB analysed two databases to measure

the impact on learning achievement: the

during BESSIP developed bi-annual National

Assessment Surveys (NAS) (1999, 2001 and

2003) of grade 5 school children in English and

mathematics and the Examination Scores of

grade 7 pupils (2001, 2003, 2005 and 2006).

The analyses were linked to the Education

Management Information System (EMIS)

database of the MoE, the Demographic and

Health Survey (DHS) of 2003 and the

Population and Housing Census of 2000 to

measure for regional background

characteristics of learners, households,

schools and teachers. The results of the IOB

research show that approximately 70% of the

grade 5 pupils do not attain the minimum

level of English and that only 6% actually

achieve the desirable level. With a minimum

level of 40% and desirable level of 70%

(Examinations Council of Zambia, 2006) this

means that 70% of the grade 5 pupils do not

master more than 40% of the target content.

For math, test results from the NAS are

improving, but examination results show an

opposite trend. Annual results on national

level are stable but fluctuations go up to 30-

40% on the provincial level. This raises

questions about the available data used and

suggests that learning achievements are highly

unstable. The weaknesses of the education

system are related to severe underfunding, a

lack of qualified and motivated teachers and

head teachers and a lack of effective

management capacity at the school and

district levels (IOB, 2008). Research by Takei

(2007) further shows a significant teacher

absence rate of 31.1% on average in the

whole of Zambia’s educational system.

Especially in rural, but also urban areas, ‘in-

school’ absenteeism is considered a major

problem.

Despite these challenges there are positive

points. Grade 5 test scores and grade 7

examination scores have not decreased. Test

results for English have remained stable and

results for mathematics have slightly

improved. There are almost no gender

differences. The fact that test and

examination results have not declined is a

remarkable achievement considering the

increase in pupil teacher, pupil classroom and

pupil book ratios since BESSIP in 2000 (IOB,

2008). It also leads to the conclusion that

without improved access, average

achievement would have been better. A

Page 10 of 20

classical example of ‘vanishing benefits’

(Ravallion, 2001). This result also contradicts

some of the research on quality education,

whereby it is said that there is a direct trade-

off between improved access and the quality

of education (White, 2004).

The current FNDP seeks a more dynamic

relationship with its cooperating partners. It

looks at general budget support for the sector

to increase national economic growth and

reduce poverty through a SWAp. To achieve

this, a relative shift from the expansion of the

education system towards increasing the

quality of education seems warranted.

Investments in the quality of teacher

education, school management and the

inspectorate are necessary to improve the

effectiveness of the recruitment of teachers

and dissemination of textbooks (IOB, 2008, p.

148). It should be noted however that the

answer does not lie in designing better

reforms. ‘No amount of sophistication in

strategizing for particular policies will ever

work. It is simply unrealistic to expect that

introducing reforms....in a situation which is

basically not organised to engage in

change...will do anything but give reform a

bad name (Fullan, 1993, p. 3).’

4.0 Methodology, approach and

method

The methodology for the research arrives

from the research question: ‘What

conceptualisation of quality education do

national and international educational

stakeholders in Zambia hold? A qualitative

research approach is appropriate as the

research aims to get an in-depth

understanding of the thoughts and

approaches towards quality educational

development. Quality is a dynamic concept.

There are different factors that influence

quality education. This research is therefore

characterised by an exploratory approach to

generate a theoretical vision on quality

education within the Zambian context. As

quality education has to be relevant to the

local needs of the learner it would be

inappropriate to test a certain quality model,

framework, or opinion. It would as well be

unsuitable to test a certain list of factors,

based on school effectiveness or school

improvement studies, which influence quality.

Neither would it be correct to presume or test

a certain quality thought e.g. ‘economist’ or

‘humanist’. As Verspoor (2005, p. 324) talks

about his seven pillars of policy action he

agrees that ‘the relative priority of quality

elements will vary, the combinations will be

different and each country will have to invent

key parts of its own “wheel”.’

Successful quality improvement has two

elements (Fullan, 2000). ‘The first is a shared

vision among educators in the country on the

process of teaching and learning, which makes

explicit the pedagogical assumptions

regarding how children learn, what level of

performance is expected and which

instructional strategies are effective under

which conditions.’ This then creates the

groundwork for the development of a “culture

of quality,” that will guide the “what” of a

quality improvement program. The second is a

strategy of implementation of the reform

program which is of the essence for learning

to occur. This research will focus on the first

point of creating a shared vision to move

towards a culture of quality to create

educational reform and improved learning for

all.

4.1 Grounded theory

The research takes a grounded theory

approach which originated with the work of

Glaser and Strauss (1967). The notion of

grounded theory has been adapted over time

Page 11 of 20

to selective purposes predominantly within

small-scale research projects with an

exploratory approach, focused on particular

settings within the social sciences

(Denscombe, 2007, p. 88). The grounded

theory approach emphasises the importance

of empirical fieldwork and data analyses, and

links its explanations to what happens in

practical situations in the real world. It is a

discovery led approach that develops theory

from empirical data. ‘Its basic principle is that

all concepts and hypotheses.....should be

generated in research, rather than produced

prior to, research’ (Gibson and Brown, 2009,

p. 27). The grounded theory approach

therefore contrasts with testing theories and

certain hypothesis. In its classical form the

grounded theory takes an open approach

without any preconceptions of existing

theories. However, an open mind is not a

blank mind. The researcher is ‘informed about

an area, even quite aware of existing theories’

but ‘it avoids using previous theories and

concepts to make sense of the data and thus

is open to discovering new factors of

relevance’ (Denscombe, 2007, p. 91) relevant

to a formulation of the concept of quality

education. This brings us to the constructivist

approach to grounded theory that rejects an

objective reality. It is argued that there is no

objectivity or single reality (Charmaz, 2000;

Guba and Lincoln, 1989). ‘The world consists

of multiple individual realities influenced by its

context (Mills, Bonner and Francis, 2006, p.

2).’

The grounded theory approach is therefore

characterised by the idea of multiple theories.

The first approach to theoretical development

is the substantive theory approach. It is closely

linked to the local empirical situation that

generalizes its outcomes to one specific

substantive area (Glaser and Strauss, 1967, p.

79) e.g. schools, ministry, NGO’s, or

cooperating partners. The other formal theory

is more conceptual, with more general

coverage and application to circumstances

beyond the substantive particular group or

area. Substantive theory is closely linked to

practice; interaction and specific kinds of

settings... while formal theory... operates at a

higher level of generality, such as systems

theory, agency theory, and contingency theory

(Locke, 2001, p. 35). A substantive theory is

therefore a stepping stone for a formal theory,

while a formal theory is based on several

substantive ones (Glaser and Strauss, 1967).

Groups of stakeholders are seen as

substantive groups. Codes, categories and

properties are developed from the substantive

groups to create structure in the data.

‘Comparisons of each category for diverse

substantive groups quickly leads to the

development of properties and... hypothesis

(Glaser and Strauss, 1967, p. 83).’ The

stakeholders have certain thoughts on

education that drives their prioritisation of

educational interventions. These different

thoughts help create codes, categories, and

properties. Ideas on factors influencing

quality, or the process on teaching and

learning between the substantive groups

create a well grounded theory on quality. The

combined thoughts create a formal theory on

the concept of quality education in Zambia.

4.2 Interview Method

Although there is no particular method of data

collection unique for the grounded theory

approach, certain methods lend themselves

better than others. ‘Methods that allow the

collection of data in the ‘raw’ state – not duly

shaped by prior concepts or theories’

(Denscombe, 2007, p. 93) are preferred. The

point is to generate a ‘loose’ theory by

bringing ideas together and accommodate

them, not to test them. Therefore, there is a

preference for unstructured interviews rather

than structured ones. The interview method

has the advantage of allowing more diversity

Page 12 of 20

in responses as well as the capacity to adapt

to new developments or issues during the

research process itself (Bell, 2005). The

interview method is best exploited when

applied to the exploration of complex

phenomena by getting insight into people’s

opinions and experiences (Denscombe, 2007,

p. 174) like the quality education concept.

Several national and international educational

stakeholders are selected due to their

influence in developing a quality education

system in Zambia. 17 interviews are carried

out on a one-to-one basis to gather in-depth

information. An interview takes between

thirty and fifty-five minutes. The grounded

theory approach is less concerned about the

sample being an exact representation of the

total population e.g. quality educational

stakeholders, due to the use of theoretical

sampling. The different substantive theories

of the respondents on the concept of quality

education should allow a comparison. ‘The

sample is therefore chosen to allow

comparisons and contrasts with previous

sites.... and verify the developing theory as the

research goes on. This means that, unlike

random sampling, theoretical sampling is a

form of non probability sampling in which the

new sites are consciously selected... because

of their particular characteristics (Denscombe,

2007, p. 95).’

5. Research Findings

Educational stakeholders hold different

conceptualisations on quality. On a national

level, the ministry tends to have an input

based economic approach to quality

concerned with providing basic requirements

as school infrastructure, teachers, and

teaching and learning materials. Schools have

a mixed input-output conceptualisation.

NGO’s take an overall output based approach

to quality education by looking at learning

outcomes of cognitive examination tests. The

process of teaching and learning is generally

ignored by the national stakeholders. The key

learning areas prioritised are reading, life and

technical skills.

On the international level quality education is

directly linked to academic achievement.

Quality education goes beyond, but includes,

examination and memorisation of knowledge.

Education should be measured by how

effectively the learner is able to use

information for socio-economic purposes. A

true measurement of quality education should

therefore be done in society and in the

classroom as the purpose of schooling is

future oriented. INGO’s work on the

boundaries of the education system and the

quality debate. Through pilot projects INGO’s

are important agents of change that help

create critical spaces for discussion with the

other stakeholders. Cooperating partners

acknowledge the importance of a quality

educational system but, due to the changing

environment of donor support outlined in the

Paris Declaration, tend to support and move

forward in partnership with the Ministry

educational agenda and wider PRSP. To

improve the quality education situation,

teachers, educational materials, supervision

and management are prioritised to improve

the basics of reading, writing, and numeracy.

From a national point of view, the education

sector is mainly focused on access and

expansion of the system through school

building and teacher training. On the

international level, a quality education system

is acknowledged as the main target objective

for economic growth and increased social

justice. To achieve a quality education system,

international partners prioritise teachers,

supervision and school management. It is

however felt by the majority of the

Page 13 of 20

educational stakeholders that a shift in focus

from access to quality educational

development is taking place although a clear

plan has not been proposed nor adopted.

There is strong harmonisation between and

within the national and international

stakeholders. There are shared beliefs on the

vision and mission of the FNDP educational

sector plan although there can be

disagreement on the methods used to

improve quality. A concern is that the

government sees it’s donors as their main

partners for development. Civil society, the

academic community, and private businesses

are left out of the educational discourse and

action although they are essential for long

term sustainable socio-economic

development.

The future development of a quality education

system is seen as positive by all stakeholders.

However, there are many context specific

barriers that prevent the education system to

reach its desirable quality level. Poverty,

funding, and capacity are the three main

barriers identified. Capacity is possibly the

biggest barrier for improved quality as any

intervention needs qualified human resource

for sustained development. If capacity is high,

interventions will be more efficient and

effective.

6.0 Discussion

The educational conceptualisation of quality

development has implications for policy intent

and pedagogic practice. Educational thinking

in Zambia is dominated by the economic value

of education based on the HCT. The input-

output model used within the HCT neglects

the contextual approach to quality education

and certain ideas of social justice and human

rights legislation as described in paragraph 2.

The economic value of education is certainly

important. It is however not an end in itself. It

is rather a means to an end to live a life that

one has reason to value. Whatever that may

be is personal. Education however, has an

important role in ensuring conditions and

providing opportunities to live a just life.

Providing the opportunity to enter ways of life

and not reproduce sociological forms in

society, requires the state to educate children

in their analytical skills of critical/rational

reflection and comparison usually associated

with autonomy (Brighouse, 2006, p. 19). Yet,

Zambia’s education system is not geared

towards critical thinking or rational reflection.

It is rather a colonial inherited system which is

focused on examination and mastering a

predefined set of facts, outlined in a

curriculum. Research findings show that

children are not able to apply the skills in

society which creates a mismatch between

what is taught and developed in schools and

what is needed in the society for socio-

economic development. Schools and

educational institutions should be oriented

towards the need of the pupils and their

community by giving them the opportunity to

take control of their own learning experience

whereby they have access to resources,

control over work life, and have the ability to

adjust, question, and critically analyse

economic, social, and technological situations

within their own rural, urban, Zambian and or

global contexts. This means that the GRZ,

doubtless in cooperation with its partners,

should develop and support a range of

programs that fits the needs of different

communities and groups of learners. This

requires a shift in thinking from “getting

learners into school or class’ to ‘getting

education to reach the learners”(Verspoor,

2008b, p. 35).

Therefore, I would argue that the current

conceptualisation of the national stakeholders

Page 14 of 20

needs to be broadened. An amelioration of

the economic approach, human rights

legislation and broader ideas of social justice is

possible. The capabilities of the learner and

her context should be included in the process

of evaluating educational progress and in

making judgements about educational quality.

Cognitive achievements and years of schooling

are incomplete proxies for the measurement

of quality education (UNESCO, 2004, p. 46).

As an evaluative tool, the comprehensive

multidimensional model of the Capability

Approach (CA) offers new potential to help

conceptualise and measure quality education.

“The CA is a broad normative framework for

the evaluation and assessment of individual

well-being and social arrangements, the

design of politics, and proposals about social

change in society” (Robeyns, 2005, p. 94).

Unlike other quality education measurements,

the CA can take account of the contextual

constraints to a quality education system from

a personal, social, and environmental level.

The CA therefore extends the evaluation of

education systems and reforms and does not

only look at inputs, processes or outcomes of

learning. Capacity within the educational

system is a barrier to achieve quality

education in Zambia. For example, if two

Zambian girls fail a grade 9 Mathematics test,

they both ‘function’ the same but their

capabilities could be different. The CA requires

that besides the functioning’s we evaluate and

take account of the opportunities or freedom

that the two pupils had to pass the

Mathematics test. It could be that one of the

pupils received teaching from a well prepared

teacher, in a high class urban area, who is

motivated by her parents. The other pupil

could be taught by an often absent, low

motivated, and overworked teacher with low

capacity in a rural area with little financial and

parental support structures.

The CA offers a method to evaluate

educational (dis)advantage, marginalisation

and opportunities to be free. The functioning

of the two Zambian girls is the same, they

both failed the test, but they have different

freedoms to succeed due to the capacity and

attendance of their teacher, economic

environment, and educational support of their

parents. Hence, the multiple determinants

used by the CA go further than schooling

outcomes or functioning’s promoted like

reading, writing, technical and social life skills.

It is argued that quality should include the

capabilities that make these functioning’s

achievable like having been taught to read,

having access to school books, being allowed

to talk freely in a society, and develop

conditions to have freedom of choice and

opportunities. The distinction between

capabilities and functioning is very useful and

important in education as the measurement

of functioning’s, as done by the NAS and

international cognitive tests, can give too little

information on what is actually preventing

children to live a life they have reason to value

(Walker and Unterhalter, 2007).

Secondly, from a national point of view, the

education sector is focused on access and

expansion of the system through school

building and teacher training. It is

acknowledged by the respondents that quality

is important but the focus goes mainly to

achieve MDG 2 of UPE. This brings us to the

politics of quality reform. Unlike access

reforms, quality reforms are unpopular with

politicians and other educational

stakeholders, as they rarely produce tangible

results quickly (Grindle, 2004). Quality

education reforms regularly create job losses

and often they require painful change for

construction workers and material

manufacturers. They additionally require

decentralisation and loss of control over

budgets, people, and decisions for the centre.

Page 15 of 20

In addition, it takes time before quality

reforms have an impact on socio-economic

development. Politics are influential on the

success and development of a quality

education system and they therefore

contribute to the low focus and prioritisation

of the national stakeholders towards quality

education reform policies.

As we have seen from chapter 3, education is

part and parcel of a wider poverty reduction

strategy (PRSP) (GRZ, 2006). Zambia as a

landlocked country with low economic

growth, a low tax base, the adoption of a neo-

liberal economy based on a single export

commodity are severely constraining

economic growth (Collier, 2008) and therefore

highly dependent on foreign assistance.

Strong harmonisation between the

educational stakeholders is a crucial to reduce

poverty and increase funding as two main

barriers influencing the quality education

situation. A major challenge for governments

is to create capacity and ‘form partnerships

with NGO’s and communities to respond to

local demand, take account of the context and

cope with the economic constraints while at

the same time deliver an educational service

that is of equivalent quality and allows

students to pursue their education if they so

whish’ (Verspoor, 2008b, p. 37).

The argument made by Samoff et al. (Samoff,

Sebatane and Dembélé, 2001) to focus down

on specific institutions and schools is

important. Currently Zambia does not have

the financial or human capacity to improve its

quality education system overnight. Targeting

of specific educational institutions to find out

what works and what not in a specific context

is the start of educational reform and the

development of sustainable collective

‘learning organisations’ (Senge, 2006). Then,

as it becomes clearer what has worked and

what has not, expanding the pilot to other

settings is necessary for other people to

benefit. It should be acknowledged by the GRZ

that to achieve equity groups sometimes have

to be treated unequal (Gardner, 1961;

Oxenham, 2005; Samoff, 2007a). Although this

runs counter to the GRZ believe of “One

Zambia, One Nation,” the current economical

situation does not allow the country to lift the

whole education system at once.

Only by recognising diversity, creating a

relevant curriculum, training competent

teachers and nurturing community support for

more equal opportunities to learning will

deliver social change and economic growth. Of

course learning is influenced by classroom,

school, community and other factors as

argued in paragraph 2. The question is not on

what to do, but what to do first. Interventions

should therefore be prioritised on the value

towards the child’s learning process which in

itself should be relevant to local needs, socio-

economic prosperity and a sustained learning

environment.

Page 16 of 20

References

Adams, D. (1993), Defining Educational Quality. Arlington, VA: Institute for International Research. Alexander, R. (2008), Education For All, The Quality Imperative and The Problem of Pedagogy.

London: CREATE Pathways to Acces Research Monograph no. 20. Barrett, A. M. (2009), The Education Millennium Development Goal Beyond 2015: Prospects for

Quality and Learners. Bristol: EdQual. Barrett, A. M., Ali, S., Clegg, J., Hinostroza, J. E., Lowe, J., Nikel, J., Novelli, M., Oduro, G., Pillay, M.

and Tikly, L. (2007), Initiatives to Improve the Quality of Teaching and Learning: A Review of recent Literature. Background Paper for Global monitoring Report 2008. Bristol: EdQual.

Barrett, A. M., Chawla-Duggan, R., Lowe, J., Nikel, J. and Ukpo, E. (2006), Review of the ‘international’ literature on the concept of quality in education. Bristol: EdQual.

Barro, R. J. (2001), 'Human Capital and Growth'. American Economic Review, 91 (2), 12-17. Beeby, C. E. (1966), The Quality of Education in Developing Countries. London and Cambridge,

Massachusetts: Harvard University Press. Bell, J. (2005), Doing Your Research Project: A Guide for First-Time Researchers in Education, Health

and Social Science. (4 ed.). Berkshire: Open University Press. Boissiere, M. (2004), Determinants of Primary Education Outcomes in Developing Countries,

Background Paper for the Evaluation of the World Bank’s Support to Primary Education. Washington D.C.: The World Bank.

Brighouse, H. (2006), On Education. London and New York: Routledge. Charmaz, K. (2000), 'Grounded theory: objectivist and constructivist methods'. In N. K. Denzin and Y.

E. Lincoln (eds), Handbook of qualitative research (2 ed., pp. 509-535). Thousand Oaks: Sage. Coleman, J. S., Campbell, E., Hobson, C., McPartland, J., Mood, A., Weinfeld, R. and York, R. (1966),

Equality of Educational Opportunity. Washington D.C.: Government Printing Office. Collier, P. (2008), The Bottom Billion. Why the poorest countries are failing and What Can Be Done

About It. New York: Oxford University Press. Copenhagen Development Consulting. (2007), Review of the Ministry of Education Sector Plan

Zambia. Lusaka: Copenhagen Development Consulting. Das, J., Dercon, S., Habyarimana, J. P. and Krishnan, P. (2004), When Can School Inputs Improve Test

Scores? Washington D.C.: World Bank. Dembélé, M. and Oviawe, J. (2007), 'Introduction: quality education in Africa–international

commitments, local challenges and responses'. International Review of Education, 53 (5), 473-483.

Denscombe, M. (2007), The good research guide: for small-scale social research projects. (3 ed.). Berkshire: Open University Press.

Donge van, J. K. (2007), 'Flexible SWAps for Strategic Policy-making: Reflections on the Zambian Experience'. Development Policy Review, 25 (4), 473-494.

Examinations Council of Zambia. (2006), Zambia's National Assessment Survey Report - 2006. Learning achievement at the middle basic level. Lusaka: Ministry of Education.

Farrell, J. P. (2007), 'Equality of Education'. In R. F. Arnove and C. A. Torres (eds), Comparative Education: The dialectic of the global and the local (3 ed., pp. 129-150). Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.

Fullan, M. (1993), Change forces: Probing the depths of educational reform. London: Routledge. Fullan, M. (2000), 'The Return of Large-Scale Reform'. Journal of Educational Change, 1 (1), 5-27. Fuller, B. (1986), Raising School Quality in Developing Countries: What Investments Boost Learning?

Washington D.C.: International Bank for Reconstruction and Development/ World Bank. Fuller, B. and Clarke, P. (1994), 'Raising school effects while ignoring culture? Local conditions and

the influence of classroom tools, rules, and pedagogy'. Review of educational research, 64 (1), 119-157.

Page 17 of 20

Gardner, J. (1961), Excellence: can we be excellent and equal too? New York: Harper and Row. Gibson, W. J. and Brown, A. (2009), Working with Qualitative Data. London: SAGE publications. Glaser, B. G. and Strauss, A. L. (1967), The discovery of grounded theory: strategies for qualitative

research. Chicago: Aldine. Global Campaign For Education. (2006), Teachers For All: what governments and donors should do.

Johannesburg: Global Campaign For Education. Grassly, N. C., Desai, K., Pegurri, E., Sikazwe, A., Malambo, I., Siamatowe, C. and Bundy, D. (2003),

'The Economic Impact of HIV/AIDS on the Education Sector in Zambia'. AIDS, 17 (7), 1039-1044.

Grindle, M. S. (2004), Despite the odds: the contentious politics of education reform. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

GRZ. (2006), Fifth National Development Plan 2006-2010. Broad based wealth and job creation through citizenry participation and technological advancement. Lusaka: Government of the Republic of Zambia (GRZ).

GRZ. (2007), 2008-2010 Medium Term Expenditure Framework and the 2008 Budget. Lusaka: Government of the Republic of Zambia (GRZ)/ Ministry of Finance and National Planning.

Guba, E. G. and Lincoln, Y. S. (1989), Fourth generation evaluation. Newbury Park: Sage. Hanushek, E. A. (1995), 'Interpreting recent research on schooling in developing countries'. The

World Bank Research Observer, 10 (2), 227-246. Hanushek, E. A. (2005), Economic outcomes and school quality. Paris: UNESCO IIEP/ International

Academy of Education. Hanushek, E. A. (2009), 'The Economic Value of Education and Cognitive Skills'. In G. Sykes, B.

Schneider and D. N. Plank (eds), Handbook on Education Policy Research (pp. 39-56). New York: Routledge.

Hanushek, E. A. and Wöβmann, L. (2007), The Role of Education Quality in Economic Growth. Washington D.C.: World Bank.

Hardman, F., Abd-Kadir, J., Agg, C., Migwi, J., Ndambuku, J. and Smith, F. (2009), 'Changing pedagogical practice in Kenyan primary schools: the impact of school-based training'. Comparative Education, 45 (1), 65-86.

Hawes, H. and Stephens, D. (1990), Questions of Quality: primary education and development. London: Longman.

Heneveld, W. (1994), Educational Quality: Defining What's Important. Washington D.C.: World Bank. Independent Evaluation Group. (2006), From Schooling Access to Learning Outcomes an Unfinished

Agenda: An Evaluation of World Bank Support to Primary Education. Washington D.C.: World Bank.

IOB. (2008), Primary Education in Zambia: IOB Impact Evaluation no. 312. The Hague: Netherlands Ministry of Foreign Affairs/ Policy and Operations Evaluation Department (IOB).

Johnson, D. (ed.) (2008), The Changing Landscape of Education in Africa. Quality, equality and democracy. Oxford: Symposium Books.

Leach, J. and Moon, B. (2008), The power of pedagogy. London: Sage. Locke, K. (2001), Grounded theory in management research. London: Sage. Lockheed, M. E. and Levin, H. M. (1993), 'Creating effective schools'. In M. E. Lockheed and H. M.

Levin (eds), Effective schools in developing countries (pp. 1-19). London: Falmer Press/ World Bank.

Lockheed, M. E., Verspoor, A. M., Bloch, D., Englebert, P., Fuller, B., King, E., Middleton, J., Paqueo, V., Rood, A., Romain, R. and Welmond, M. (1991), Improving Primary Education in Developing Countries. Washington D.C.: Oxford University Press for the World Bank.

McKenzie, P. and Santiago, P. (2005), Teachers Matter: Attracting, Developing And Retaining Effective Teachers. Paris: OECD.

Mills, J., Bonner, A. and Francis, K. (2006), 'The development of constructivist grounded theory'. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 5 (1), 1-10.

Page 18 of 20

Mingat, A. (2005), 'Options for a cost-effective allocation of resources'. In A. M. Verspoor (ed.), The Challenge of Learning: Improving the Quality of Basic Education in Sub-Saharan Africa (pp. 107-137). Paris: ADEA.

Mingat, A. and Tan, J. P. (1986), On the Quantity Quality Trade-Off in Education in Developing Countries, International Conference on Economics of Education: Tackling the New Policy Issues, June 23-25. Dijon, France: Institut de Recherche Sur L'Économie de L'Éducation.

MoE. (2007a), National Annual Work Plan and Budget. Lusaka: Ministry of Education (MoE). MoE. (2007b), National Implementation Framework 2008-2010. Lusaka: Ministry of Education (MoE)/

Government of the Republic of Zambia (GRZ). Neri, F. (2001), Schooling Quality and Economic Growth: Economics Working Papers 01-05:

Department of Economics, Faculty of Commerce, University of Wollongong. Nussbaum, M. (2000), Women and human development: the capabilities approach. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press. Nussbaum, M. (2006), 'Education and Democratic Citizenship: Capabilities and Quality Education'.

Journal of Human Development, 7 (3), 385-395. OECD and DAC. (2005), Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness. Ownership, Harmonisation, Alignment,

Results and Mutual Accountability. Paris: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, Development Co-operation Directorate, Development Assistance Committee, 28 February - 2 March.

OECD and DAC. (2008), Aid Effectiveness. A Progress Report on Implementing the Paris Declaration. 3rd High Level Forum on Aid Effectiveness. Accra: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, Development Assistance Committee, 2-4 September.

Oxenham, J. (2005), 'What is the problem of equity in quality?'. In A. Verspoor (ed.), The Challenge of Learning: Improving the Quality of Basic Education in Sub-Saharan Arica (pp. 69-86). Paris: ADEA.

Pigozzi, M. J. (2006), 'What is the Quality of Education? (A UNESCO perspective)'. In K. N. Ross and I. J. Genevois (eds), Cross National Studies of the Quality of Education: planning their design and managing their impact. (pp. 37-50). Paris: UNESCO/ IIEP.

Pigozzi, M. J. (2008), Towards an Index of Quality Education. Paper presented at the International Working Group on Education, 10-11 June.

Plowden Report - Central Advisory Council For Education (England). (1967), Children and their Primary Education Volume 1&2. London: HMSO.

Postlethwaite, T. N. (2004), What do international assessment studies tell us about the quality of school systems? Background paper prepared for the Education for All Global Monitoring Report 2005 - The Quality Imperative. Paris: UNESCO.

Ramos, L. (2007), Analysing the response of a teacher training institution to HIV and AIDS: a case study from Zambia. Breda: UNESCO.

Ravallion, M. (2001), 'The Mystery of the Vanishing Benefits: An Introduction to Impact Evaluation'. The World Bank Economic Review, 15 (1), 115-140.

Riddell, A. (2008), Factors Influencing Educational Quality and Effectiveness in Developing Countries: A Review of Research. Eschborn: Deutsche Gesellschaft Fur Technische Zusammenarbeit (GTZ).

Robeyns, I. (2005), 'The capability approach: a theoretical survey'. Journal of Human Development, 6 (1), 93-117.

Robson, S. and Sylvester, K. B. (2007), 'Orphaned and vulnerable children in Zambia: The impact of the HIV/AIDS epidemic on basic education for children at risk'. Educational Research, 49 (3), 14.

Sammons, P., Hillman, J. and Mortimore, P. (1995), Key characteristics of effective schools: a review of school effectiveness research. London: Institute of Education, University of London.

Samoff, J. (2007a), 'Education for All in Africa: Still a Distant Dream'. In R. F. Arnove and C. A. Torres (eds), Comparative Education: The Dialectic of the Global and the Local (pp. 357-388). Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield.

Page 19 of 20

Samoff, J. (2007b), 'Education quality: the disabilities of aid'. International Review of Education, 53 (5), 485-507.

Samoff, J., Sebatane, E. M. and Dembélé, M. (2001), Scaling up by focusing down: Creating space to expand education reform, Biennial Meeting of the Association for the Development of Education in Africa, 7-11 October 2001. Arusha: ADEA.

Scheerens, J. (1992), Effective schooling: Research, theory and practice. London: Cassell. Schubert, J. (2005), 'The reality of quality improvement: Moving toward clarity'. In A. Verspoor (ed.),

The Challenge of Learning: Improving the Quality of Basic Education in Sub-Saharan Africa (pp. 53-65). Paris: ADEA.

Schwille, J., Dembélé, M. and Schubert, J. (2007), Global perspectives on teacher learning: improving policy and practice. Paris: UNESCO/ International Institute for Educational Planning.

Sen, A. (1992), Inequality reexamined. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Sen, A. (1993), 'Capability and well being'. In M. C. Nussbaum and A. Sen (eds), The quality of life.

Oxford: Oxford University Press. Sen, A. (1999), Development as Freedom. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Senge, P. M. (2006), The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization. London:

Random house. Stephens, D. (1990), 'Qualitative Factors in Education, Research and Development: A Position Paper'.

International Journal of Educational Development, 10 (2/3), 143-149. Stephens, D. (2003), Quality of Basic Education. Background Paper for Global Monitoring Report

2003/4 - Gender and Education for All: The Leap to Equality. Paris/ Oslo: UNESCO. Takei, H. (2007), Teacher Absenteeism in Zambian Schools: magnitude, structure and teacher

perspectives, Unpublished dissertation as partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts in Education and International Development. London: Institute of Education, University of London.

Teddlie, C. and Reynolds, D. (2000), The international handbook of school effectiveness research. London: Falmer Press.

Tikly, L. and Barrett, A. M. (2007), Education Quality - Research Priorities and Approaches in the Global Era. Bristol: EdQual.

UIS. (2006), Teachers and Educational Quality: Monitoring Global needs for 2015. Montreal: UNESCO Institute of Statistics.

UNESCO. (1990), World Declaration on Education for All and Framework for Action to meet Basic Learning Needs, Adopted by the World Conference on Education for All: Meeting Basic Learning Needs, 5-9 March, Jomtien, Thailand. Jomtien: UNESCO.

UNESCO. (2004), EFA Global Monitoring Report 2005 - The Quality Imperative. Paris: UNESCO. UNESCO. (2008), EFA Global Monitoring Report 2009 - Overcoming inequality: why governance

matters. Paris/ Oxford: UNESCO/ Oxford University Press. UNESCO and UIS. (2009), Education in Zambia, UIS statistics in brief. [Online]. Available at:

http://stats.uis.unesco.org/unesco/TableViewer/document.aspx?ReportId=121&IF_Language=eng&BR_Country=8940. Last accessed 29 July 2009.

UNICEF. (2000), Defining Quality in Education. Paper presented at the Meeting of The International Working Group on Education, June, Florence.

Unterhalter, E. (2008), 'Social Justice, Development Theory and the Question of Education'. In R. Cowen and A. M. Kazamias (eds), International Handbook of Comparative Education (pp. 771-790). Netherlands: Springer.

Verspoor, A. M. (ed.) (2005), The Challenge of Learning: Improving the Quality of Basic Education in Sub Saharan Africa. Paris: ADEA.

Verspoor, A. M. (2008a), At the Crossroads: Choices for Secondary Education and Training in Sub-Saharan Africa. Washington: World Bank Publication.

Verspoor, A. M. (2008b), 'The Challenge of Learning: Improving the Quality of Basic Education in Sub-Saharan Africa'. In D. Johnson (ed.), The Changing Landscape of Education in Africa. Quality, Equality and Democracy. (pp. 13-43). Oxford: Symposium Books.

Page 20 of 20

Visser-Valfrey, M., Brown, C. R., Abagi, O., Buabuttra, T. and Nalwamba, C. (2008), Improving the education response to HIV and AIDS: Lessons of partner efforts in coordination, harmonisation, alignment, information sharing and monitoring in Jamaica, Kenya, Thailand and Zambia. Geneva: UNAIDS/ Inter-Agency Task Team on Education.

Walker, M. and Unterhalter, E. (eds) (2007), Amartya Sen's capability approach and social justice in education. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Welch, A. R. (2000), 'Quality and Equality in Third World Education'. In A. R. Welch (ed.), Third World Education. Quality and Equality (pp. 3-27). New York: Garland Publishers Inc.

White, H. (2004), Books, Buildings, and Learning Outcomes. An Impact Evaluation of World Bank Support To Basic Education in Ghana. Washington D.C.: World Bank.

White, H. and Dijkstra, A. G. (2003), Programme aid and development, beyond conditionality. London: Routledge.

World Bank. (2001), Zambia Public Expenditure Review. Public Expenditure Growth and Poverty: A Synthesis. Washington D.C.: World Bank.

Yu, G. (2007), Research Evidence of School Effectiveness in Sub-Saharan Africa. Bristol: EdQual.