Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

This ethnographic study examined the (un)intended¹ consequences of increased privatization of Early Childhood Education (ECE) in Nepal and Kenya. Qualitative data showed overreliance on high-stakes standardized tests increased competition for ‘good grades or examination scores’, thus (un)intentionally creating ideal conditions for proliferation of for-profit private schools that predominantly taught culturally decontextualized education at all levels of schooling. Private schools in both countries served high-income families and children, while low-income families and children did not have access to ECE or attended government and not-for-profit programmes. Rather than bridging the gap between low and high-income families, these educational spaces influenced existing social divisions and inequalities. Therefore, this study concluded that private schools in Nepal and Kenya function like businesses, which (un)intentionally promoted educational injustice² against children from low-income families. Consequently, authors recommend enactment of new educational policies and practices that promote culturally contextualized curricula in ECE programmes.

Keywords

Early childhood education privatization educational injustice globalization Kenya Nepal

Introduction

Kenya and Nepal are situated in different continents, yet both countries have multiple similarities such as education policies that are strongly influenced by modern globalization, neocolonial and neoliberal ideologies (Madrid Akpovo et al., 2018; Gupta, 2016). Additionally, the World Bank and International Monetary Fund’s policies which favour educational practices that promote economic interests for the developed Western nations have fostered the current proliferation of for-profit private schools in both countries (Gupta, 2016, 2018; Lee, 2012; Pherali, 2013; Tabulawa, 2003). Private schools (un)intentionally syphon essential funding from public schools (Joshi, 2019), thus limiting educational access to millions of children, yet access to quality education is a human right (UNESCO, 2015).

(Un)intended consequences

Educational policies have both planned and unplanned consequences (Diamond, 2007; Heilig and Darling-Hammond, 2008). However, it is not always easy to determine whether consequences are planned or unplanned. Therefore, this study uses (un)intended and (un)intentional consequences to draw attention to this reality and problematize the differences between the two constructs. Specifically, we have respectively used the terms (un)intentional and (un)intended to mean planned/expected, and unplanned/unexpected consequences of increased privatization of early childhood education (ECE) in Nepal and Kenya. While some policy consequences are planned, others emerge organically (i.e. unplanned). Recognizing the outcomes of planned educational policies is typically a transparent process, but this is not the case with (un)intended consequences.

Frequently (un)intended consequences mask themselves as intended consequences (Diamond, 2007; Heilig and Darling-Hammond, 2008). Equally challenging is the fact that planned educational policies do not always translate into planned or expected outcomes because policy implementation is often dependent on non-transparent factors. One such variable that commonly creates a mismatch between planned educational policies and outcomes is local context (Madrid Akpovo et al., 2018). Contexts include the implicit and explicit cultural norms, rituals, routines, values and beliefs (Nganga, 2020; Gupta, 2014; Tobin, Hsueh and Karasawa, 2009; Tobin, Wu and Davidson, 1989), which are negotiated and transmitted in the everyday life of an educational setting. Therefore, while congruence between planned educational policies and context is capable of producing planned or intended consequences, a mismatch between the two could easily result in unplanned outcomes (Mouzelis, 2000). To minimize the likelihood of developing unintentional or unplanned consequences, policy makers should be sensitive to local cultural contexts, community needs, histories, and lived experiences (Anderson-Levitt, 2003; Li and Chen, 2017).

Privatization of early childhood education in Nepal and Kenya: History

Privatization of education in Nepal began in the late 1960s and 1970s (Shrestha et al., 2008). Initially, private fee-based schools served the elite caste system and male members of Nepali society (Bhandari, 2017). Although social norms allow boys to attend school, females from rural and low-income families rarely have access to educational opportunities. To address these disparities, the Nepali government introduced the 1971 Education Act and used the term ‘pre-primary’ to refer to ‘schools that provided one year’s pre-primary education’ to children above the age of four (Ministry of Education, 1971: 2). Equally helpful was opening of private Montessori schools in the 1970s that offered ECE services to larger portions of the Nepali people.

Notwithstanding the identified educational efforts, only children from high-income families and castes attended private schools where they continued to have access to quality education (Khanal, Paudyal and Dangal, 2017). That is, young children in private schools had access to transportation to and from school, clean learning environments (e.g. water, food, clothes), newly built school structures, travel to off-campus sites for learning experiences, highly qualified teachers and an abundance of learning resources. On the other hand, children from lower-income classes and castes such as the Dalit³ community rarely had the opportunity to obtain any type of educational experience (Lamsal and Maharjan, 2015; Regmi, 2017). Addressing this obvious conundrum, Regmi (2017: 16) explained that:

In comparison to their share in total population at around 12 percent, the share of Dalit enrollment is 20.3 percent at primary level and 10.6 percent at secondary level. Likewise, in comparison to their share in total population around 40 percent, the Janajati⁴ enrollment is 35.4 percent at primary level and 38.8 percent at secondary level.

Consequently, the government approved the Constitution of Nepal (1990) and the Child Rights and Welfare Act (1991, 2008) that gave rise to government-endorsed Early Childhood Education (ECE) centres. Continuing efforts by the Ministry of Education, Non-Government Organizations such as UNESCO, USAID and UNICEF have resulted in policies and practices for sustainable and quality ECE in urban and rural areas of Nepal (Shrestha et al., 2008). For example, over ‘35,000 Early Childhood Development Centers (ECDCs) have been established to benefit more than one million young children annually’ (Khanal et al., 2017: 135). Most, if not all private ECE centres teach some English language that is considered invaluable for children’s future success in a competitive Euro-Western dominated global society. In comparison, children from lower-income and caste families continue to have limited access to ECE, thus increasing disparity in educational trajectory between lower- and upper-class children. Undoubtedly, early childhood education programmes in Nepal support the existing social/economic divisions between high and low-income families and children, which also supports caste-based discrimination. It should be noted that there is an absence of research about early childhood education in Nepal in the literature. Most research has been conducted by non-government entities with independent research (i.e. early childhood scholars) only emerging within the past six years (Madrid Akpovo, 2017).

By design and practice, ECE programmes in Nepal promote educational injustice against low-income families and children. The existing caste system in Nepal tends to exacerbate educational injustice because of the prevailing local cultural practices that continue to divide people by socioeconomic status. To that end, marginalized castes are subject to linguistic, religious, ethnic, sociocultural, and geographical discrimination, as well as unequal access to state and societal resources such as education (Lawoti, 2012). The Nepali government has attempted to address these inequalities by enacting various political changes, including the abolishment of the monarchy (Shaha, 2001). Nevertheless, many Nepali children and women continue to bear the brunt of exclusionary practices that are based on Hindu ideologies. For example, it is estimated that ‘children below the age of 10 years represent the poorest age subgroup, with a Multidimensional Poverty Index of 0.194 in 2014’ (Government of Nepal, 2018: 17). Inclusion of children from low-income and ethnically marginalized groups in ECE services is virtually absent, and therefore, an escalation of educational inequities in Nepal was obvious (Alkire and Santos, 2014; Khanal, 2015).

Similar to Nepal, private schools are well established in Kenya because they are credited with educational success as measured by high-stakes tests. All Kenyans prefer to educate their children in private fee-based schools, whether faith or community-based (Edwards et al., 2017; Heyneman and Stern, 2014; Tooley, 2009, 2013). Kenya started faith and community-based private schools soon after gaining independence from Britain in the early 1960s. Additionally, the new government in independent Kenya, led by indigenous Kenyans, opened pre-primary or early childhood education under the auspices of the National Centre for Early Childhood Education (Garcia, Pence and Evans, 2008; Nganga, 2009). In theory, curriculum for pre-primary education was universal, culturally contextualized, experienced-based, and child-centred (Ministry of Education Science and Technology, 2005). In practice, however, ECE curricula adapted the ‘Asomi’ practice that required indigenous Kenyans to ape British cultural practices while downgrading indigenous cultural practices such as languages, ethics, morals, and religions (Gachathi, 1976; Ngugi, 1981).

Commonly, educators and parents in Kenya require children in early childhood education to abandon their respective ethnic languages in favour of the English language that is considered superior and invaluable for success in a European dominated world (Maenda, 2009; Nsamenang and Tchombe, 2011; Swadener and Wachira, 2003; Nganga and Kambutu, 2019). But a heavy focus on competitive scores in high-stakes tests has increasingly pushed ECE to focus more on preparing children for high-stakes standardized tests. The (un)intentional result was/is proliferation of for-profit private ECE schools because they are better positioned to prepare learners for eventual good performance in high-stakes tests at primary, secondary, and university levels (Wamalwa and Burns, 2018).

As a whole, for-profit private schools in Kenya increased tremendously during the 1980s and 1990s because of the government’s Structural Adjustment Programmes (SAPs) that reduced funding for public education (Oketch et al., 2010). Additional proliferation occurred in the early 2000 following the government’s re-introduction of free primary education (FPE) aimed at providing ‘opportunities to all school age children to gain access to quality education for a full cycle of basic education’ (Abuya et al, 2015: 2). (Un)intentionally, FPE caused a decline in ‘quality of education due to a massive surge in enrollment, overcrowding of classrooms (as high as 1:150 in some schools), and lack of textbooks and shortage of trained teachers’ (Abuya et.al., 2015: 2). Consequently, many parents searched for educational alternatives in private schools, thus leading to the current mushrooming of for-profit private schools at all levels of education (Edwards, Klees and Wildish, 2017; Heyneman and Stern, 2014).

Educational policies do not always translate into the intended outcomes because policy implementation is dependent on a number of factors (Diamond, 2007; Heilig and Darling-Hammond, 2008). In Kenya’s case, the government introduced free education to make education accessible to all school age children. However, the prevailing cultural ideology that values educational competition on high-stakes tests encouraged wealthy parents to enroll their children in less crowded and more expensive for-profit private schools (Oketch et al., 2010; Ngware, Mutisya and Oketch, 2012; Nishimura and Yamano, 2013). Certainly, it was neither the government’s plan to create overcrowding in government supported public schools, nor was it its intention to cause the wealthy parents to move their children to private schools. Notwithstanding, however, low-income families in Kenya continue to attend government-funded public schools or low-cost private schools that typically have low-quality learning resources. As a result, children from low-income families are (un)intentionally ill prepared for educational success as measured by their scores on high-stakes standardized tests (Nishimura and Yamano, 2013). Evidently, the current proliferation of for-profit private schools in Kenya both intentionally and unintentionally promote educational injustice against the children from low-income families.

Contextualizing the problem: Neocolonialism/Nneoliberalism and globalization

Neocolonialism/neoliberalism and globalization conceptual frameworks are used in this study to contextualize and problematize the current proliferation of private schools in Nepal and Kenya. Further, the National Education Association’s framework for the 21st century that recommends skills in critical thinking, creativity, communication and collaboration – or the 4C’s – informed this work (National Education Association, n.d.). Despite the significance of 4C’s, neoliberalism (specifically through the policies of the Word Bank) equates education with for-profit businesses (Apple, 2006). Intentionally and unintentionally, neoliberal views have increased educational competition as measured in high-stakes standardized tests. Globally, there is increased demand for for-profit private schools that primarily focus on teaching to the test (Lee, 2012). Neocolonialism is equally problematic because of its support for educational polices that primarily serve the economic interests of former colonial master nations (Ashcroft, Griffiths and Tiffin, 2000; Nsamenang and Tchombe, 2011).

Typically, an education that is based on business ideals, profit making especially, is culturally decontextualized. Additionally, it promotes cultural, military and political domination (Nsamenang and Tchombe, 2011; Sleeter, 2003). Equally problematic is an education that is shaped by neocolonial ideology(s) whose primarily focus is to ensure payment of International Monetary Fund’s (IMF) loans instead of supporting opportunities for underdeveloped nations to set individualized educational policies and priorities (Lee, 2012; Steger, 2009). As a result, lower-income nations often ‘invite’ foreign investors to help them raise essential funds to service external debt. Because foreign investors are only interested in profit making in all sectors, including in education, they intentionally and unintentionally create ideal spaces for proliferation of for-profit private schools in developing countries (Tabulawa, 2003).

To generate profit in education, neocolonialism/neoliberalism promotes education for high-stakes standardized tests instead of curricula that support intellectual curiosity at local and global levels(Nganga, 2012; Merryfield, 1997; Nsamenang and Tchombe, 2011; Rogoff, 2003). An education designed for high-stakes tests fails to prepare learners for effective functioning in a globalized age (Nganga, 2019). As such, this study argues that because education in Nepal and Kenya has neocolonial and neoliberal dimensions, it (un)intentionally fails to prepare children for global mindedness. Rather, education in for-profit private schools focus more on guaranteeing success in high-stakes tests instead of teaching essential culturally contextualized skills such as communication, creativity, critical thinking and collaboration (Nganga and Kambutu, 2019; Nsamenang and Tchombe, 2011).

Problem statement

This paper examines the (un)intended consequences of increased privatization of Early Childhood Education (ECE) in Nepal and Kenya. First, we postulated that in addition to (un)intentionally supporting culturally decontextualized education, for-profit private schools intentionally and unintentionally promote educational injustice against low-income children and families. Second, we recommend the use of culturally contextualized education that embraces critical thinking, creativity, communication and collaboration skills (4C’s) (Applied Educational Systems, 2020; National Education Association, n.d.). An education thus designed is invaluable because it equips learners with skills such as creativity or being open to ‘new perspectives, generate novel and meaningful ideas, raise new questions, and come up with solutions to ill-defined problems’ (Beghetto, 2006: 1). These skills are essential for effective functioning in the current age of globalization. Other needed skills include critical thinking or the ability to evaluate the authenticity, accuracy, and worth of knowledge claims in order to make informed decisions (Beyer, 1983; Nganga and Kambutu, 2019; Walters, 1989). In addition, Lawley, Moore and Smajic (2014) considered mastery of skills in collaboration and communication essential in the current reality of global interconnection and interdependence that requires clear explanation of thoughts, beliefs and expectations. Clearly, an education that fosters communication, collaboration, creativity and critical thinking skills is well situated to prepare learners for the current age of modern globalization that requires deeper understanding and appreciation of global issues (Nganga, 2016 and 2019). However, an education for global awareness is less likely to be implemented effectively in educational settings that focus primarily on passing high-stakes standardized tests (National Education Association, n.d.).

Methodology

To document the (un)intentional consequences of increased privatization of ECE in Nepal and Kenya, we used a collaborative ethnographic approach (Lassiter, 2005). Collaborative ethnography entails close and purposeful cooperation of all the parties involved in a given project. Ethnographic studies involve use of clearly structured interviews that deviate from regular everyday talk (Spradley, n.d.). As a result, we (the researchers) used semi-structured interviews as recommended by Bernard and Ryan (2010) and Roos (2014). Effective semi-structured interviews do not necessary follow rigid protocols. For example, in addition to using planned interview questions, Bernard and Ryan (2010) recommended use of probing questions.

It should be noted that the overarching research questions from the Nepal and Kenya projects came from three datasets that examined early childhood education in these countries. The three research projects contained a large corpus of qualitative data collected over several years and from long-term engagement and established relationships with the participants at the research sites (Tobin and Hayashi, 2017). Each research team had observed and documented the domination of for-profit private schools and uncovered this theme over the course of data collection and analysis. Each team had spent at least six years conducting and gathering ethnographic data (Madden, 2010). The research question for this particular analysis focused on the question of the (un)intended consequences of increased privatization of ECE, but the projects were not specifically focused on the (un)intended consequences of privatization. Rather, this was a theme that arose organically from the interviews and focus groups. The participants spoke about this issue without being prompted, thus demonstrating the importance of the topic to the local context as well as what was important in participants’ lived experiences (Madden, 2010). As consistent with ethical and trustworthy qualitative methodology, the participants determined the focus and scope of their responses during the semi-structured interviews and focus groups.

Using a collaborative research approach (Lassiter, 2005), we examined the unplanned or unexpected consequences of increased privatization of ECE in Nepal and Kenya. For example, while analysing data we continually compared our experiences in these different early childhood education contexts. Further, we recognized the limitation of not having the same procedures and participants at each site. Conversely, we recognized the value, ethics, and trustworthiness of gathering data in-situ (Madrid Akpovo et al., 2018). That is, each project used an emergent and culturally relevant methodology with a collaborative research approach to gather data based on the local research context (Redmond, 2003). This study approach allowed us to ground the research questions and design in the context of each research site, which offered an emic and indigenized way of being with participants in the data collection process. Therefore, there are differences in the number of participants, type of participants, and the questions asked during the interviews and focus groups. Redmond (2003: 15) reminded us, ‘in as much as we recognize the cultural specificity of childhood, so too must we acknowledge that research methodologies are a product of, and embedded within, particular national/cultural contexts’. Hence, rather than viewing these study differences as problematic, we embraced and valued the differences. We spoke openly about potential limitations in this study and continually checked our subjectivities and bias when comparing and coding data (Peshkin, 1988).

In this study, we worked closely with ECE teachers in Kathmandu, Nepal and with parents and teachers in Central Kenya in order to compare the role(s) of private ECE in both countries. Parents were not part of the participants in the Nepal collaborative ethnography. While 14 teachers participated in semi-structured interviews in Nepal, we initially invited an experienced ECE educator in Kenya to participate. After interviews, this educator requested additional three ECE teachers and two parents to join the study. The invited parents had educated their children in public schools before transferring them to for-profit private schools. Thus, they were well positioned to provide informed comparative data. In both Nepal and Kenya, the researchers examined participants’ cultural backgrounds, role(s) as teachers and parents (as applicable), how the economic states of their respective schools affected teaching, and how government policy(s) informed teaching practices.

Data collection

In Nepal, we collected data using two different studies. The first study (n = 5) included a for-profit private ECE school in Kathmandu that served upper-class Nepali children ages 2 to 5 years. Five female lead teachers participated in this study. All the included teachers held at least a Bachelor’s degree and had three to 16 years of teaching experience. The participants participated in three sessions of structured interviews, two focus group discussions and weekly classroom observation for approximately six weeks. Consent forms were written in Nepali. This ECE school was established in 1996 and currently has over 60 children ranging from ages 2 to 5 years. The school is located in an upper-middle-class residential area that consists of mostly nuclear families. The curriculum used in this school integrates and balances relevant cultural practices with Eurocentric philosophies and developmental theories such as play-based methodologies, learning by doing/experiential learning, and project and inquiry-based approaches.

The second Nepali study (n = 9) had four female teachers from a non-profit school and five from a for-profit school in Kathmandu. The for-profit school is similar to the school described above. The non-profit school was established in 2006 and is located in a residential area where most families come from a lower income bracket. The school consists of over 150 children ranging from infants to 12 years old. The school offers child-care facilities as well as elementary classes for children who mostly come from families belonging to the labour class/low socioeconomic caste. The families pay a minimal fee or no cost at all. The school provides basic education based on the national primary curriculum of Nepal.

We conducted semi-structured interviews with each participant for approximately an hour each. Additionally, we conducted two focus group interviews that lasted approximately one hour with both sets of teachers. Consent forms were written in Nepali. The following questions guided semi-structured interviews: (a) How would you describe your role as a teacher? (b) What kind of perspective do you as teachers have regarding quality in early childhood education? (c) What policies in the Early Childhood Policy of Nepal are being implemented and followed? (d) Why should educators be involved in policy making? and (e) What is the perception of teachers regarding gender equality in your jobs?

In Kenya, we initially invited one participant, an experienced ECE teacher, before using a snowballing technique (Bernard and Ryan, 2010; Kember and Gow, 1992; Thomas and Carswell, 2000) to identify five additional participants (n = 6). As a research strategy, snowballing entails solicitation of additional potential participants when study sample is small in size (Merriam, 2009; Patton, 2002). Essentially, snowballing enlarges research sample, thus increasing the possibility of gathering more inclusive data (Patton, 2002). Ethnographic studies necessitate full participation by the researcher(s) (Madden, 2010). Thus, in addition to immersing ourselves in the ECE programmes we studied, we conducted all interviews at locations convenient to participants. Interviews were semi-structured and lasted approximately 40 minutes to one hour. All participating teachers held college education certificates (equivalent to associate degrees in the US). Participants gave informed consent and were informed that they could withdraw from the research at any point without penalty. The following is a description of teacher and parent participants (pseudonyms used):

Monica: Had taught in an all-day preschool for children ages 3–6 years. At the time of study, she was teaching in a preschool in the morning and in a 1st grade class in the afternoon in the same primary school.

Mina: Taught in a full-day preschool ages 3–6 years that was located in a low socioeconomic neighbourhood in a local town. Previously, she taught 1st grade in a poor rural primary school.

Peggy: Taught in a public full-day preschool that served children ages 3–6 years. Her preschool was located in a low-income rural area.

Cecily: Taught in a for-profit primary school that served preschool children ages 3–6 years and also hosted 1st grade through 8th grade children (primary school in Kenya is 8 years).

Mathew: His children attended public and for-profit private schools.

Lilian: Had taught in a preschool before starting a private business. Her children attended a low-cost private preschool.

During interviews, the participants responded to the following open-ended questions: (a) What is the difference between private and government early childhood education in Kenya? and (b) In your judgement, what is the outlook of private and early childhood education in Kenya? Although we pre-selected these guiding interview questions, we asked unplanned follow-up questions as needed. The researchers took field notes (Bogdan and Biklen, 1992) during interviews.

Data analysis

We analysed data using an ethnographic approach in order to document the (un)intentional consequences of increased privatization of ECE in Nepal and Kenya (Creswell, 2007). We transcribed, coded, and categorized participants’ responses. Then, we sorted comments in accordance to research questions, nexus analysis and the discourse of globalization, neocolonialism and neoliberalism. Further, we used the 4C’s framework (Nganga, 2019; National Education Association, n.d.) to problematize education for high-stakes testing in the current age of globalization. In addition to using our field notes as additional data sources (Bogdan and Biklen, 1992), we conducted constant comparative examination of our data sets, and performed member checks to ensure that our transcripts captured the participants’ perspectives accurately. These data comparisons helped us to identify distinct characteristics within the data, which then helped us to develop assertions to answer the emergent research question related to the issue of (un)intended consequences of private schools (Strauss and Cobin, 1998). We further triangulated data with the available literature in order to corroborate apparent relationships of relevant situations, meanings and nuances (Creswell, 2007; Yin, 2003).

Data analysis reflected our (researchers) shared interpretations of the insights that we gained about the (un)intended consequences of private schools in Nepal and Kenya. To ensure reliability of analyses, we studied data independently and then together in order to develop consensus about the similarities and differences in ECE programmes in both countries. Initially, we identified several minor themes that we refined and clustered (Creswell, 2007). In the end, distinct patterns/themes emerged that we melded into the following two major themes: (a) Quality government and private schools, and (b) Disparities between government and private schools. We present findings (pseudonyms used to protect participants’ identities) in a thematic format (Creswell, 2007), starting with results from Nepal and then Kenya.

Findings

Nepal – Quality: A comparison between government and private schools

The discourse of expanding services for the disadvantaged children and families, ensuring all children have access to free education, and a holistic focus on the young child has been a recent focus of Nepali government policies. Nevertheless, the 2015 Education for All (EFA) report (UNESCO, 2015) suggested that quality continued to be insufficient within government and community-based schools in Nepal. Of particular concern was lack of educational norms and standards, lack of standardized requirements of teacher training, low teacher salaries, lack of standard guidelines to measure educational quality, and ‘watered-down’ standards of pre-primary and primary curricula school level (Khanal et al., 2017). Additionally, corruption and favouritism from government officials and Non-Governmental Organizations (NGO/INGO) bureaucrats, who often lacked in-depth knowledge of ECE, exacerbated the issue of implementing quality national educational polices and standards (Rajbhandari, 2013; Shrestha, 2006).To confirm the identified challenges, two Nepali teachers in our study reported that corruption was a major barrier in improving ECE. Nina and Lakshmi’s excerpts below not only confirm the identified challenges, but they also postulated that ‘good’ policies did not transfer to ‘good’ local practices:

Teacher Nina: There are several problems in Nepal as many early childhood advocators and directors in big NGOs/INGOs are not qualified to teach in ECE, and most are appointed not because they have the knowledge, but through corruption (nepotism and favoritism and also influence of political parties). We do have educated community, but our leaders/people in the field and other people responsible for certain monitoring duties are not responsible and are often corrupt and do not fulfil their duties.

Teacher Lakshmi: Perception of policy makers – very good policies and laws regarding these issues but no implementation. You can ask any principal – are all children the same? Do you treat them equally? They will say yes, but as you watch them work, you will begin to notice bias. The law requires anti-bias approaches, but it is not implemented.

As stated above, incongruence between policies and actual practices exists. Therefore, Nina and Lakshmi expressed disappointment in the limited support that the government provided to children. Moreover, they complained that administrators would say they are using anti-bias practices, but those practices are not implemented.

In addition to corruption and unqualified policy makers, participants further noted how the testing and entrance examinations imposed by private-fee-based schools on young children demoralized ECE teachers and influenced classroom experiences. (Un)intentionally, these exams added pressure on ECE teachers to prepare young children (4- and 5-year-olds) to be academically ready for primary school, which is (un)intentionally creating a top-down curriculum. This view is documented in the researcher’s field notes and in the interview data provided below:

Field notes, 7 June 2018: The upper level teacher (kindergarten) and 4-year-old teacher are constantly reminding us that the children need to be ready for the 1st grade exam. If they are not ready, the parents will question their teaching and school. There is pressure for teacher to demonstrate to parents that children from their school are well prepared for the entrance exams to get into a prestigious school.

Teacher Anita: Children have lost the desire to learn because of the pressure they are under. They begin to learn before 3 years old and they hardly finish high school. Private schools have immense competition. Can we talk about eliminating the entrance exam? If the government makes the national curriculum good and comprehensive, this could stop.

As indicated in our field notes, teachers often spoke about the pressure they felt from parents to prepare children for high-stakes examinations as compared to using contextually appropriate practices, or practices grounded in the developmental needs of young children. In addition, they spoke about how the required entrance examination (un)intentionally dominated their practices because it required them to produce 5-year-old children who will be ‘competitive’ in reading, writing and arithmetic. Even outsiders, new to the Nepali school system, noted the significance of the 1st grade exam on teachers’ work life. A United States (US) student-intern at the school spoke to the researcher about how the teachers were ‘super worried about all the kids taking that test to get into grade school’ (Field notes, June 2018).

This prmary school’s ‘push-down’ and competitiveness is embedded in a neoliberal economy and commodification of early childhood education. As such, only the fee-based private schools can competitively prepare children for this high-stakes exam, which is why a majority of schools in Nepal use English as the language of instruction and use Euro-Western terms such as ‘play-based’ or ‘Montessori’ to describe their teaching philosophy. Therefore, Bhandari (2017: 131) concluded that:

kindergarten education provided by the government and private sector creates social gaps as public kindergartens are mainly Nepali-speaking, whereas private kindergarten education is mainly provided via the English language which is highly prized as the language of social mobility. Thus, while in the private kindergartens ‘the cost of attending is a major barrier to access’ (Education International, 2010), many parents want their child to learn English and make every effort to enroll their children in private kindergartens.

Teachers often blame this competitive and unequal system of ECE education on government policies and the social gaps created by the disparity between government and private schools. This was clearly stated when one teacher participant in this study indicated that many of the problems in Nepal’s educational system could be solved if the government could make the national primary-level curriculum ‘good’ and ‘comprehensive’. It is important to note, however, that the Nepali government does not oversee private fee-based schools. Rather, it only oversees government or community-based schools.

Nepal – Disparities between government schools and private schools

The Nepali government’s failure to adequately monitor educational policies and practices is a central problem within ECE system (Groot, 2007).(Un)intentionally, then, underqualified teachers who receive low pay are routinely employed in government public schools. Poorly trained teachers are incapable of meeting the developmental needs of young children as they unintentionally use instructional practices that are downward extensions of a primary school instruction (Shiwakoti, 2008). Meanwhile, the existing differential educational tracks between private fee-based and government schools pose additional challenges. Addressing this issue, teacher Krishna reported that her school, which serves upper-class children, was just a ‘drop in the ocean’. In Nepal, many teachers do not take education of young children seriously. Instead, they consider it a ‘pastime’ job. The following excerpt provides additional essential insight.

Teacher Krishna: I feel very sorry that here in Nepal the teachers are not that serious. They take teaching preschool as a pastime job. But here in Children’s Village School, the parents are very, very well-educated, and they are quite aware of it, and they want to give the best environment, and they want to see that the teachers are trained. They want to see how we teach, but Children’s Village School is just a drop in the ocean in Nepal.

In the above account, Krishna shares that serving urban upper-class children is different than teaching lower-class rural children. It should be noted that Krishna’s views of parents in her centre as being educated and aware of the importance of quality early care and education are based on assumptions related to the impacts of globalization on the level of parental education and parenting/child rearing practices within higher socioeconomic families in Nepal. As noted in the introduction section, there is ample evidence that suggest that higher income families mostly reside in urban areas and have increased access to high-quality early childhood services (Regmi, 2017). Research based on parental education indicates that higher socioeconomic families have higher expectations from early childhood care and education teachers (Greenberg, 2011; Torquati et al., 2011). Other evidence suggests that Nepali families from lower income castes are aware of the importance of education as a whole, but other unintended outcomes of poverty become prioritized such as health and nutrition, especially in majority-world countries such as Nepal (Devkota and Panda, 2016; Joshi, 2014). The term ‘majority world’ is used to replace the term third world or developing countries because these terms hold a negative connotation (Pence, 2018; Madrid Akpovo et al., 2018)

Moreover, the participant above noted that teachers in Nepal did not see teaching young children as a serious or highly valued profession, but rather as a ‘pastime job’. Here, she was comparing teachers in government schools with educators in private schools. She commented that her school was different because the parents were well-educated and understood the importance of well-trained ECE teachers. Similarly, a different teacher discussed changes in family structures as an additional factor that was (un)intentionally impacting educational practices. Relative to this educator’s assumption, the current trend of high-socioeconomic families to move away from the traditional extended family structure has increased the shift to nuclear family structures especially in urban communities of Nepal (Shankar, Singh and Singh 2012). There are more women in the workforce as the process of globalization and the ‘marketization of the economy are nevertheless occurring in Nepal’ which has influenced changes in family structures (Grossman-Thompson, 2017: 502). All 10 teachers interviewed from two private schools suggested that parental involvement and communication was important for improving school climate. In contrast, parental involvement was not a common topic for the four teachers interviewed from lower-income school.

The teachers interviewed in this study discussed how little Nepali government did for community and government ECE centres. These participants agreed that early childhood services, especially in community-based and government schools, were lacking resources, trainings, and proper learning materials (Bhandari, 2017). These in-depth conversations with Nepali teachers about government policies illustrated the complexities, multiple perspectives, and various practices within the discourse of schooling in Nepal. The teachers we interviewed were aware of: (a) the disparity in school systems between upper-class families and lower-income families both in rural and urban areas, (b) the disparity in upper-class and lower-class families’ understanding of quality ECE, and (c) the lack of monitoring of early childhood services by the government in order to make early childhood teaching a ‘legitimate’ profession. For instance, after discussing the lack of government support, one teacher noted that although participants complained about government’s shortfalls, they were equally guilty of passiveness because they had not ‘gone to the government level and talked to them about this’. The discourse embedded within this teacher’s comment revealed how Nepali citizens, even from higher caste systems, did not have access to discussions with government officials. This problem was exacerbated for lower-caste and low socioeconomic teachers and families. While the teacher participants in this study had many thoughts and concerns about what the government did for early childhood education, there was a lack of structured communication between local teachers and policy makers. Kenyan educators had similar concerns as is evident in subsequent data.

Kenya – Quality: A comparison between government and private schools

As stated earlier, private schools in Kenya started in the early 1960s to primarily serve children from wealthy families. With eventual emergence of low-cost private schools, however, low-income parents nowadays have access to private schools. Data from this study showed that availability of both for-profit and low-cost private schools translated into (un)intentional increased competition between private and government schools. To that end, participants associated private schools with quality. For example, in their responses to structured in-depth interviews, the participants compared government and private schools in contexts of quality. As a whole, they reported that private schools had higher quality education, both in practice and policy. As a result, they believed the number of private schools in Kenya will continue to increase. Therefore, one parent reported that the number of private schools ‘will continue to go up because of competition for better academic grades. Success in Kenya is aligned with quality education as measured by good grades’ (Lilian, interview notes).

Recognizing the importance of educational success, the Kenya government requires offering of quality, accessible, and equitable ECE services to all children. Data from this study revealed inequities in policy and practice based on school location (rural vs. urban) and whether schools were public or private. The 2018 County Early Childhood Bill required county governments to fund all ‘early childhood education’ irrespective of school location. Contrarily, data from this study showed discrepancy in funding between rural and urban schools. In rural areas, for example, it was common for educators to go for months without pay. Reflecting on this condition, teacher Mina reported that hope sustained many educators who would sometimes go for ‘three months without pay, but I just go to work in hope that my money will come. It affects me psychologically as sometimes I have no food for my family. I have talked to other teachers and they say the same thing’ (interview notes).

Generally, funding and support in for-profit private schools was dramatically higher than in government schools irrespective of location due to parental contributions. Therefore, teachers and parents in this study reported a strong preference for private schools because they had sufficient teaching and learning resources. Consequently, teacher Peggy reported that even though her private school was located in a rural area, parents were mainly ‘middle class and supported their children by providing learning materials. I am lucky than many teachers who do not have this type of help.’ Similarly, parent Mathew reported comparable luck as he addressed his fortune in being able to educate his children in a for-profit private school. This father judged educational experiences in private schools positively because:

Parent Mathew: Private schools are generally well-funded. Therefore, teachers have the right teaching materials, and they monitor students’ performance very closely, giving them regular personalized performance feedback. Thus, students perform better in national exams than pupils in public schools. But because private schools ‘spoon feed’ or teach to tests, graduates from these schools struggle to manage real life survival challenges. (Interview notes)

The Kenyan government has a policy that supports every child’s right to high quality education (County Early Childhood Education Bill, 2018: 456). While teachers and educators in this study embraced this policy, clearly, data pointed to the government’s failure to provide sufficient financial support, thus (un)intentionally making it impossible for public schools and early care centres to implement quality education for all learners. Instead, for-profit schools funded by parents assumed this noble responsibility. Regrettably, private schools mainly focused on teaching to standardized high-stakes test, notwithstanding the government’s policy against testing children during the early years. Instead of focusing on standardized tests, the government mandated a contextualized and holistic curriculum (County Early Childhood Education Bill, 2018). But even though contextualized learning has value (Nsamenang and Tchombe, 2011; Madrid Akpovo et al., 2018) data from this study indicated that, run like businesses, private schools taught for success in high-stakes standardized tests in order to meet their customers’ needs. Responding to this reality, one teacher offered the following analysis:

Teacher Monica: For-profit private schools are there for commercial reasons only. Thus, good private schools are very expensive- I think some are set up for commercial/exploitation reasons only. They make money by increasing enrollment- good performance in high-stakes tests equals high demand for schools. So, only the wealthy parents can educate their children in those schools. Poor public schools and preschools are for low-income families. (Written reflection)

Clearly, a disconnect exists between Kenyan government’s educational policies and practice. For example, data from this study showed that economic realities (un)intentionally supported competitive education. As a result, education in for-profit private schools was increasingly costly. Thus, only rich families were able to educate their children in expensive for-profit private schools, while low-income families educated theirs mainly in government supported schools and/or low-cost private schools. The quality of education in these two tracks of schools is dissimilar. Data from our study showed that while children from low-income families experienced education in poorly funded public schools, children of wealth had access to well-funded (for-profit private schools) that prepared them for success in high-stakes tests, perhaps positioning them well for future economic success. These findings implied that for-profit private schools in Kenya (un)intentionally promoted educational injustice against children from low-income families.

To address the noted educational disparity between high-income and low-income families, the government of Kenya should adopt strong educational regulations, oversight and monitoring of policies and practices in order to ensure all children have access to quality early childhood education. Equally worth addressing is the goal(s) of Kenya’s education. Currently, education in Kenya encourages unhealthy competition particularly in high-stakes standardized tests, perhaps (un)intentionally stifling creativity, critical thinking and collaboration, the very skills Kenyans need to function effectively in a globalized age.

Kenya – Disparities between government and private schools

When asked about the prospect of private schools in Kenya, all the participants in our study predicted that for-profit schools will continue to flourish because they offered better educational experiences. Therefore, one educator reported that parents would continue to prefer private schools as is evident in the response below:

Teacher Cecily: For-profit private schools have enough resources because parents are able to make big donations as well as pay high fees. This translates to paying teachers high salaries which motivate them to teach and spend more time preparing children for tests. Having enough resources, the management is able to ensure that every class has a teacher, as well as low teacher-child ration to enable smooth learning. Therefore, education in for-profit private schools is exceptional and challenging through extracurricular and gift programs that motivate learners. (Interview notes)

Generally, private schools in Kenya have better learning conditions than government public schools that experience poor funding and large class sizes (Republic of Kenya, 2006). To confirm this analysis, a preschool teacher in this study cited poor learning conditions as a critical challenge in public government supported schools as is evident in the excerpt below.

Teacher Monica: When I taught first grade, I had over 50 children in my classroom. Preschool is not that different. If you have 30 children, it is hard to give attention to all of them when you have that many. Many children also go without lunch or eat old and spoilt food. Some children do not want to eat in the company of other students because they are embarrassed of the kinds of food they eat. Children in private schools on the other hand have warm, quality lunch. So, even though I teach in a public preschool, I prefer to have my children go to private schools where teacher-student ration is low, and therefore, teachers have more time to work with each child. (Interview notes)

Clearly, for-profit private schools in Kenya had better learning conditions than government supported schools. For instance, a parent in this study concluded that government schools would ‘continue to be disrespected and associated with failure because of limited financial resources’. Further, this parent cited other challenges experienced by government schools including ‘local and national popular politics which make them non-independent in decision making, demotivated teachers, and disruption from regular staff strikes’ (Mathew, interview notes).

Given that local communities were responsible for providing resources essential to implementing Kenya’s educational policies and practices, data from this study showed an obvious implementation disparity between private and public ECE programmes, with for-profit private schools having an upper hand. A preschool educator reported that:

Teacher Mina: Because private schools are run like businesses where workers are expected to give 100% to their work for the business to learn smoothly, they are able to implement education policy better than in public schools … In private schools, teaching methodology is different. Teachers deal with each child according to his or her ability, hence giving them attention while public schools don’t. (Interview notes)

An obvious critical difference between private and government schools in Kenya was the level of attention given to students. Undoubtedly, private schools provided better services because parents paid for the needed services. Equally noted were instructional disparities, perhaps because private schools hired highly qualified educators.

Given the identified benefits in for-profit private schools, it was highly likely that they would continue to thrive in Kenya. Further, data showed that most educators preferred to transfer from public to private schools. To participants, teaching in government or low-fee private schools was just ‘a good place to wait to be absorbed by private schools because it takes time to find a teaching job in bigger and wealthier private schools with better pay’.

Data from this study pointed to the likelihood that for-profit private schools in Kenya would most certainly continue to flourish because they served a specific niche- an education for high-stakes tests, and they had favourable working conditions for educators. While having favourable working conditions is understandable, what is problematic is the fact that an education that prepares learners to pass high-stakes standardized tests only tends to be culturally decontextualized. Equally challenging is the fact that education in for-profit private schools intentionally and unintentionally excluded children from low-income families, yet they needed educational success (as measured by high-stakes tests) the most to break the cycle of poverty that ailed the low-income population in Kenya. Therefore, we argue that although the current proliferation of for-profit schools in Kenya is understandable, they are (un)intentionally promoting educational injustice against learners from low-income families. Further, increased focus on high-stakes standardized tests was (un)intentionally promoting implementation of a decontextualized education system that is not ideal for preparing learners for globalization (National Education Association, n.d.). Thus, this study strongly invites the Kenyan government to reconsider its support for an education for high-stakes tests, and instead implement educational policies that support developmentally, culturally, and linguistically appropriate early childhood care education system. Further, we urge the government to adopt the recommendations offered by the Partnership for 21st Century Skills (Nganga, 2020; National Education Association, n.d.) for an education that nurtures creativity, critical thinking, collaboration and communication (4C’s) because such an education equips learners with knowledge and skills essential for the current globalized contexts.

Discussion

Data from this study illustrate that irrespective of social and economic class, families in Nepal and Kenya were less concerned with culturally/contextually appropriate education. Instead, they focused primarily on academic success as measured by successful performance in high-stakes tests because such achievement promoted social and economic standings. Therefore, in both countries, high-income families were more concerned with keeping their socioeconomic status through educational achievement. Meanwhile, low-income families were interested in educational success that opened employment opportunities in high paying white-collar jobs or employment associated with their caste. An education for employment is focused on passing decontextualized academic subjects such as Mathematics, English, and Science, and is consistent with neocolonial/neoliberal ideals (Lee, 2012).

Incidentally, private schools in both Nepal and Kenya guaranteed educational success as measured in high-stakes tests and English as the primary language of instruction. Thus, many parents preferred educating their children in private schools. This was illustrated in the parent and teacher data from Kenya and the teacher data from the two Nepal projects. Irrespective of context (i.e. rural, urban, for-profit, or low-cost), data showed that all private schools focused primarily on high-stakes tests as a way of mitigating educational competition. In both Nepal and Kenya, private schools were run like businesses. Thus, the schools performing well in high-stakes standardized tests attracted more students, which translated into increased enrollment and increased income and status for schools. Therefore, unlike public schools that have government mandate to admit all students, admission in for-profit private schools is selective – they factor learner’s academic ability and parental financial status, and in doing so, schools (un)intentionally adhere to neocolonial and neoliberal ideology that values profit more than anything else. In the current age of globalization, teaching skills in critical thinking, communication, creativity, and collaboration (4C’s) instead of an education for good grades as measured by getting good grades in high-stakes tests should be the focus (National Education Association, n.d.). An education for high-stakes tests is especially problematic because it tends to be culturally decontextualized. In addition, it has limited space for learners to develop novel ideas, and/or gain deeper understanding and appreciation of global issues (Nganga et al., 2020).

Overall, data from our study showed that despite the identified commonalities in policies and practice, Nepali private schools had a social class dimension. In Nepal, class and caste mixing was discouraged (Bhandari, 2017). Therefore, children from upper-class families only attended private schools to avoid mixing with children from low caste families. In essence, then, data from this study showed that by failing to educate children from low-income families, for-profit private schools in both countries intentionally and unintentionally supported and maintained social, cultural, and economic disparities. Further, by implementing an education that is culturally decontextualized in order to teach for high-stakes tests, private schools in both countries (un)intentionally failed to prepare children for the current globalized era that necessitate mastery of knowledge and skills in creativity, critical thinking, communication and collaboration. Therefore, we recommend the use of culturally contextualized education that embraces the 4C’s (Beghetto, 2006; Beyer, 1983; Nganga, 2019). Additionally, we discourage the implementation of decontextualized educational policies that favour Western ideologies, perpetuated in neocolonialism and neoliberal contexts. An education thus designed and practiced is not ideal for preparing learners for a globalized era (Nguyen et al, 2009; Nsamenang and Tchombe 2011;Madrid Akpovo et al., 2018).

Globalization or the world interconnection in economic, political, cultural, and social systems (Nganga and Kambutu, 2015) has generated increased global cultural interactions, thus requiring skills in global mindedness along with a focus on social justice (Cushner, 2007). While an education for social justice examines, disrupts, and replaces existing unjust and oppressive societal structures (Sleeter and Grant, 2009), learning for global mindedness embraces multiple perspectives (Banks, 2001; Bleicher and Kirkwood-Tucker, 2004;Nganga, 2016), is driven by local and global issues including preservation of basic human rights and dignity (McCabe,1997), and it promotes intellectual curiosity that transcends national and cultural borders (Nganga, 2012, Merryfield, 1997).

Clearly, contextualized education is invaluable especially in the current era of globalization (Madrid Akpovo et al., 2018; Gupta, 2018: Li and Chen, 2017). However, data from this study showed that by design and practice, education in for-profit private schools in Nepal and Kenya preferred teaching to high-stakes standardized tests, and, therefore, it perhaps intentionally and unintentionally failed to help learners acquire the knowledge and skills they need to function effectively in a globalized era. As a result, we argue in support of infusing into the existing curricula an education that is culturally and contextually appropriate. An education thus designed and implemented could help learners understand and appreciate both local and global issues, a critical benefit because we live in increasingly interconnected and interdependence global spaces. As a result, what happens in one distance community and/or nation influences/affects what happens in distance communities (Kambutu, 2013).

Conclusion

Culturally and contextually appropriate education is invaluable for our globalized age. Yet, data from this study showed a strong societal appetite in Nepal and Kenya for educational success as measured in passing high-stakes standardized tests. An education for high-stakes tests is problematic because it focuses primarily on decontextualized academic subjects, rarely inviting holistic education (National Education Association, n.d.). Further, an education for high-stakes tests encourages competition, thus (un)intentionally neglecting cultural assets. Data from this study indicated that because of increased competition, education in for-profit private schools intentionally and unintentionally excluded low ability and low-income children and families. Yet, this group of learners needed academic success the most in order to break the cycle of poverty they experienced. By failing to educate all students well, learners from low-income families especially, this study concludes that for-profit private schools in Nepal and Kenya (un)intentionally promoted educational injustice against the marginalized groups.

Attaining academic skills has value. Nevertheless, this study concludes that learners need to master knowledge and skills in critical thinking, communication, creativity, and collaboration (4C’s) in order to become global minded. Therefore, it invites for-profit private schools to infuse into existing academic curricula learning that is culturally contextualized. Further, this study invites the governments of Nepal and Kenya to strongly embrace an education that equip all learners with knowledge and skills essential for a globalized era (Nganga, 2019). Such an education should also consider local and global contexts as education always occur in a ‘specific ecological and cultural context’ Nsamenang and Tchombe (2011: 11). A contextually oriented approach is desired because children in Nepal and Kenya are not only socialized in schools, but they also receive family based education that prepares them to be productive members of their respective societies (Rogoff, 2003).

To be effective, these governments should not only enact policies and practice for holistic education (Kenya has such policies, but rarely implemented), but should also rigorously monitor implementation practices (there are no monitoring systems for ECE in Nepal). In the case of Kenya, well intentioned policies such as free primary education caused classroom overclouding in government public schools, thus negatively impacting quality of education (Ilon, 1992).

In the current reality of increased cultural interdependence and interconnectedness, we argue that an education that equips learners with knowledge and skills in creativity, critical thinking, communication and collaboration instead of preparing learners for high-stakes tests only is warranted. Although education for high-stake tests has its place, it has limited space to teach knowledge and skills essential for cultural interdependence and interconnectedness (Nganga et al., 2020; National Education Association, n.d.). As a result, it might not be suitable for early childhood education programmes.

Implications and recommendations

This study addresses the intended and unintended influences of neocolonialism/neoliberalism and globalization on educational policies and practices in developing nations. Given that neocolonialism/neoliberalism is strongly interested in profit making, for-profit private schools that primarily teach decontextualized education for high-stakes tests have (un)intentionally proliferated in developing nations (also referred to as majority world). Therefore, this study urges pertinent governments to continually review educational policies and practices in for-profit private schools in order to ensure that they intentionally implement culturally contextualized education, informed by local and global contexts. While an education thus designed is likely to teach critical thinking, creativity, communication and collaboration skills, it also is likely to promote educational social justice for all. Thus, we conclude that education systems in Nepal and Kenya (un)intentionally marginalize learners from low-social economic status. Further, we challenge market-driven assumptions that associate schooling with choice—that parents have a choice between educating their children either in private or public schools. Notwithstanding the popularization of for-profit private schools by the World Bank (Garcia et al., 2008), educating children in for-profit private schools is not a feasible option for low-income and low caste families. Therefore, using data from this study, we invite all governments to promote educational justice by providing extra educational support to teachers and learners in poorly funded public schools. Further, we invite all educators to problematize the deeply rooted assumption that equates educational success with earning good grades in high-stakes standardized tests. Instead, we recommend an education that transforms learners into effective citizens of a globalized society.

Footnotes

Declaration of conflicting interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Notes

ORCID iD

John Kambutu

John Kambutu is a Professor of Education in the School of Teacher Education, University of Wyoming; email: Kambutu@uwyo.edu. His research work is in multicultural education, social justice, teacher education, rural education, and globalization/internationalization efforts. Kambutu believes strongly in educational practices that liberate humanity from the ills of ignorance, thus enabling them to live a free life. An education for critical change is transformative in design and practice.

Samara Madrid Akpovo is an Associate Professor in the Department of Child and Family Studies at the University of Tennessee Knoxville; email: smadrid1@utk.edu. Her research has focused on the emotional lives of adults and children in early childhood classrooms using collaborative ethnographic methods along with feminist and post-structural frameworks. A central theme in her research has been to challenge and deconstruct normative ways of being, feeling, and knowing with young children and teachers in diverse social and cultural contexts. Her research also examines early childhood pre-service teachers’ development of cross-cultural and intercultural understandings during international field experiences.

Lydiah Nganga is an Associate Professor in the School of Teacher Education, University of Wyoming; email: Lnganga@uwyo.edu. Her scholarship explores educational issues related to global education and social justice pedagogy. In terms of global education, Dr. Nganga’s work centers on teacher education, cross cultural and cross-national comparative education. Her social justice work focuses on implementation of culturally responsive pedagogy (CRP) in teacher education, as well as educational practices in early childhood education. Several theoretical frameworks such as Culturally Responsive Teaching (CRT), Globalization and neocolonialism, and Multicultural social justice inform her scholarship.

Sapna Thapa is an Associate Professor at the University of Wisconsin-Stout; email: thapas@uwstout.edu. Her research interests are in the areas of cultural teaching practices, diversity, and equity in early childhood educational policies and practice. Her most recent research project is a cross-cultural collaborative study exploring emotional discomfort in mentors and mentees in an intercultural relationship. She believes that teaching practices are based on and impacted by socio-culture of a given context thus policies should be framed and implemented with the socio-culture of the child, family and teacher in mind.

Agnes Muthoni Mwangi is an Early Childhood Teacher at St. Mary’s Primary School, Muranga, Kenya. Her research focuses on preschool education in Kenya.

References

Abuya

Admassu

Ngware

Onsomu

Oketch

(2015) Free primary education and implementation in Kenya: The role of primary school teachers in addressing the policy gap. https://doi: 10.1177/2158244015571488.

Alkire

Santos

(2014) Measuring acute poverty in the developing world: Robustness and scope of the multidimensional poverty index. World Development 59: 251–274.

Anderson-Levitt

K (

2003) Local Meanings, Global Schooling: Anthropology and World Culture Theory. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

Apple

(2006) Educating the ‘Right’ Way: Markets, Standards, God, and Inequality. New York: Routledge.

Applied Educational Systems (2020) What are the 4 C’s of 21st century skills? Available at: https://www.aeseducation.com/career-readiness/what-are-the-4-cs-of21st-century-skills

Ashcroft

Griffiths

Tiffin

(2000) Post-colonial Studies: The Key Concepts. London: Routledge.

Banks

(2001) Citizenship education and diversity: Implications for teacher education Journal of Teacher Education 52(1): 6–16.

Beghetto

(2006) Does creativity have a place in classroom discussions? Prospective teachers’ response preferences. Thinking Skills and Creativity 2(1): 1–9.

Bernard

Ryan

(2010) Analyzing Qualitative Data: Systematic Approaches. Los Angeles: Sage.

10.

Beyer

(1983) Common sense about teaching thinking skills. Educational Leadership 41: 44–49.

11.

Bhandari

(2017) Early childhood education and development in Nepal: Access, quality and professionalism. Prima Educatione 1: 129–138.

12.

Bleicher

Kirkwood-Tucker

(2004) Integrating science and social studies teaching methods with a global perspective for elementary preservice teachers. Curriculum and Teaching Dialogue 6(2): 115–124.

13.

Bogdan

Biklen

(1992) Qualitative Research for Education: An Introduction to Theory and Methods. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

14.

Child Rights and Welfare Act (1991, 2008) Available at: http://www.lawcommission.gov.np

15.

Constitution of Nepal (1990) Available at: http://www.lawcommission.gov.np

16.

County Early Childhood Education Bill (2018) Available at: http://www.parliament.go.ke/sites/default/files/2018-10/County%20Early%20Childhood%20Bill.pdf

17.

Creswell

(2007) Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design: Choosing Among five Approaches. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

18.

Cushner

(2007) The role of experience in the making of internationally-minded teachers. Teacher Education Quarterly 34(1): 27–39.

19.

Devkota

Panda

(2016) Socioeconomic gradients in early childhood health: Evidence from Bangladesh and Nepal. International Journal for Equity in Health 15(1): 78.

20.

Diamond

(2007) Where the rubber meets the road: Rethinking the connection between high-stakes testing policy and classroom instruction. Sociology of Education 80: 285–313.

21.

Edwards

Jr. Klees

Wildish

(2017) Dynamics of low-fee private schools in Kenya: Governmental legitimation, school-community dependence, and resource uncertainty technical report. Teachers College Record 119 (7): 1–42.

22.

Gachathi

(1976) Report of the National Committee on Education Objectives and Policies. Nairobi, Republic of Kenya: Government Printer.

23.

Garcia

Pence

Evans

(2008) Africa’s future, Africa’s challenge: Early childhood care and development in Sub-Saharan Africa. The World Bank. Available at: http://siteresources.worldbank.org/EXTAFRREGTOPEDUCATION/Resources/444707-1291071725351/Africa_Challenge_Africa_Future_2008_final.pdf accessed 28 April 2020).

24.

Government of Nepal – National Planning Commission (2018) Multidimensional Poverty Index: Analysis Towards Action. Available at: https://www.npc.gov.np/images/category/Nepal_MPI.pdf

25.

Greenberg

(2011) The impact of maternal education on children’s enrollment in early childhood education and care. Children and Youth Services Review 33(7): 1049–1057.

26.

Groot

(2007) Deprived children and education Nepal. Available at: http://www.childlabour.net/documents/educationproject/Nepal_Report_dec18.pdf

27.

Grossman-Thompson

(2017) ‘My honor will be erased’: Working-class women, purchasing power, and the perils of modernity in urban Nepal. Journal of Women in Culture and Society 42(2): 485–507.

28.

Gupta

(2014) Diverse Early Childhood education Policies and Practices: Voices and Images from Five Countries in Asia. New York: Routledge Press.

29.

Gupta

(2016) Policy trends in teacher professionalization and professionalism in India. In: Li M, Fox J and Grieshaber S (eds) Contemporary Issues and Challenges in Early Childhood Education in the Asia–Pacific. Singapore: Springer, 221–239.

30.

Gupta

(2018) How neoliberal globalization is shaping early childhood education policies in India, China, Singapore, Sri Lanka and the Maldives. Policy Futures in Education 16(1): 11–28.

31.

Heilig

Darling-Hammond

(2008) Accountability Texas-style: The progress and learning of urban minority students in a high-stakes testing context. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis 30(2): 75–110.

32.

Heyneman

Stern

JMB

(2014) Low cost private schools for the poor: What public policy is appropriate? International Journal of Educational Development 35: 3–15.

33.

Ilon

(1992) School choice in a privatized market: Equity implications in Zimbabwe. Journal of Education Finance 17(4): 303–317.

34.

Joshi

(2014) Continuing to exercise choice after selecting a school: Insights into parent-decision making in local education markets in Nepal. International Journal of Educational Development 37: 57–67.

35.

Joshi

(2019) The growth, roles and needs of private education system: Private stakeholder perspectives form Nepal. International Journal of Educational Development 65: 57–67.

36.

Kambutu J (2013) Globalization: History, consequences and what to do with it. In: Nganga L, Kambutu J and Russell III WB (eds) Exploring globalization opportunities and challenges in social studies. Effective instructional strategies (pp. 1–10). New York: Peter Lang.

37.

Kember

Gow

(1992) Action research as a form of staff development in higher education. Higher Education 23(3): 297–310.

38.

Khanal

(2015) Children from the Dalit community in rural Nepal: A challenge to inclusive education. International Journal of Inclusive Education 19(7): 710–720.

39.

Khanal

Paudyal

Dangal

(2017) Early childhood development policies in Nepal: Achievements, learning, and implications. In: Li H, Park E and Chen JJ (eds) Early Childhood Education Policies in Asia Pacific: Advances in Theory and ractice. Singapore: Springer, 135–159.

40.

Lamsal

Maharjan

(2015) Role of economic factors in promoting Dalit education. Journal of Advanced Academic Research, 2(1): 59–73.

41.

Lassiter

(2005) The Chicago Guide to Collaborative Ethnography. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

42.

Lawley

Moore

Smajic

(2014) Effective communication between preservice and cooperating teachers. The New Teacher Educator 10(2): 153–162.

43.

Lawoti

(2012) Ethnic politics and the building of an inclusive state. In: von Einsiedel S, Malone DM and Pradhan S (eds) Nepal in Transition: From People’s War to Fragile Peace. New Delhi: Cambridge, 129–152.

44.

Lee

(2012) From common struggles to common dreams: Neoliberalism and multicultural education in a globalized environment. Multicultural Perspectives 14(3): 129–135.

45.

Chen

(2017) Evolution of the early childhood curriculum in China: The impact of social and cultural factors on revolution and innovation. Early Child Development and Care 187(10): 1–13.

46.

Madden

(2010) Being Ethnographic: A Guide to the Theory and Practices of Ethnography. London: Sage.

47.

Madrid Akpovo S (2017) Uncovering cultural assumptions: The use of a critical incident technique during an international student-teaching field experience. Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood. DOI: 10.1177/1463949117747108.

48.

Madrid Akpovo S, Nganga L and Acharya D (2018) Minority- World Preservice Teachers’ Understanding of Contextually Appropriate Practice While Working in Majority-World Early Childhood Contexts, Journal of Research in Childhood Education 32:2: 202–218. DOI: 10.1080/02568543.2017.1419321

49.

Maenda

(2009) Education and cultural hybridity: What cultural values should be imparted to students in Kenya? Compare: A Journal of Comparative and International Education 39(3): 335–348.

50.

McCabe

(1997) Global perspective development. Education 118(1): 41–46.

51.

Merriam

(2009) Qualitative Research: A Guide to Design and Implementation. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

52.

Merryfield

(1997) A framework for teacher education in global perspective. In: Ministry of Education (1971) Nepal Law Commission. Available at: http://www.lawcommission.gov.np/en/archives/category/documents/prevailing-law/statutes-acts/education-act-2028-1971

53.

Ministry of Education Science and Technology (2005) Session l, Paper No. 1 of 2005: A policy framework for education, training and research. Nairobi, Republic of Kenya: Government Printer.

54.

Mouzelis

(2000) The subjectivist–objectivist divide: Against transcendence. Sociology 34: 741–762.

55.

Nganga L (2009) Early childhood education programs in Kenya: Challenges and solutions. Early Years, An International Journal of Research and Development 29(3): 227–236.

56.

Nganga L (2012) Children and cultural socialization in Kenya and the U.S.A. In Ukpokodu ON and Ukpokodu P (Eds.), Voices from the margin: Perspectives of African-born teacher educators on African and American education (pp. 109–128). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.

57.

Nganga L (2016) Promoting Intercultural Competence in a Globalized Era: Pre-Service Teachers’ Perceptions of Practices that Promote Intercultural Competency. Journal of International Social Studies 6(1): 84–102.

58.

Nganga L (2019) Preservice teachers perceptions of teaching for global mindedness and social justice: Using the 4Cs (Collaboration, Critical thinking, Creativity and Communication) in teacher education. Journal of Social Studies Education 44(1): 77–90.

59.

Nganga L and Kambutu J (2019) Kenya education: An eclectic epistemological collage. In Han, Keonghee T. & Laughter, J. (Eds), Critical race theory in teacher education: Informing culture and practice (pp.137–146). New York: Teachers College Press.

60.

Nganga L (2020) Analyzing Children’s Literature for Hidden Bias Helps Preservice Teachers Gain Pedagogical Practices in Critical Multicultural Education, Journal of Research in Childhood Education 34(1): 93–107, DOI: 10.1080/02568543.2019.1692109

61.

Nganga L, Roberts A, Kambutu J and James J (2020) Examining pre-service teachers’ preparedness and perceptions about teaching controversial issues in social studies. The Journal of Social Studies Research 44(1): 77–90.

62.

National Education Association (n.d.) Preparing 21st Century Students for Global Society. Available at: http://www.nea.org/assets/docs/A-Guide-to-Four-Cs.pdf

63.

Ngugi wa

Thiong’o

(1981) Education for a National Culture. Harare: Zimbabwe Publishing House.

64.

Nguyen

Elliott

Terlouw

Pilot

(2009) Neocolonialism in education: Cooperative learning in an Asian context. Comparative Education 45(1): 109–113.

65.

Ngware

Mutisya

Oketch

(2012) Patterns of teaching styles and active teaching: Do they differ across subjects in low and high performance schools? London Review of Education 10(1): 35–54.

66.

Nishimura

Yamano

(2013) Emerging private education in Africa: Determinants of school choice in rural Kenya. World Development 43: 266–275.

67.

Nsamenang

Tchombe

TMS

(2011) Handbook of African Educational Theories and Practices: A Generative Teacher Education Curriculum. Human Development Resource Centre (HDRC), North West Region, Cameroon. Available at: https://www.jacobsfoundation.org/app/uploads/2017/07/Jacobs-Foundation_Handbook-African-Educational-Theories-and-Practices-3.pdf (accessed 28 April 2020).

68.

Oketch

Mutisya

Ngware

Ezeh

Epari

(2010) Free primary education and pupil school mobility in urban Kenya. International Journal of Education Research 49: 173–183.

69.

Patton

(2002) Qualitative Research and Evaluation Methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage.

70.

Pence

(2018) Fortuitous invitations, and possible ways forward: Early childhood education, care, and development (ECD) in the majority world. In: Madrid Akpovo S, Moran MJ and Brookshire R (eds) Collaborative Crosscultural Research Methodologies in Early Care and Education Contexts. New York: Routledge, 19–29.

71.

Peshkin

(1988) In search of subjectivity: One’s own. Educational Researcher 17(21): 17–21.

72.

Pherali

(2013) Schooling in violent situation: The politicization of education in Nepal before and after 2006 peace agreement. Prospect 43(1): 49–67.

73.

Rajbhandari

(2013) Minimum standard of early childhood development centers: Status, issues and challenges. Journal of Early Childhood Development 2: 87–93.

74.

Redmond

(2003) Cultural and ethical challenges in cross-national research: Reflections on a European Union study on child and youth migration. International Journal of Qualitative Methods 2(4): 15–24.

75.

Regmi

(2017) Inclusive education in Nepal from theory to practice (Doctoral dissertation). Ludwig-Maximilians-University, Munich, Germany.

76.

Research Centre for Educational Innovation and Development (CERID) (2004). Free and compulsory primary education in the context of education for all. Available at: http://www.cerid.org/formative/files/1148555535-fcpri_edu.pdf

77.

Rogoff

(2003) The Cultural Nature of Human Development. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

78.

Roos

(2014) A sociocultural perspective on young deaf children’s finger spelling: An ethnographic study in a signing setting, Deafness and Education International 16(2): 86–107.

79.

Shaha

(2001) Modern Nepal: A Political History. New Delhi: Manohar.

80.

Shankar

Singh

(2012) Possible impact of increase in female medical student admissions in Nepal: Findings from a qualitative study among medical undergraduates. The Australasian Medical Journal 5(3): 184–193.

81.

Shiwakoti

(2008) Education financing in Nepal. Education and Development 23: 48–57.

82.

Shrestha K (2006) Towards meeting the EFA goal on early childhood development: A Review of the current status and major challenges in Nepal. Journal of Early Childhood Development 3: 76–85.

83.

Shrestha

KHR

Bajracharya

Aryal

Thapa

Bajracharya

(2008) Early Childhood Policy Review in Nepal. Kathmandu: Tribhuvan University.

84.

Sleeter

(2003) Teaching globalization. Multicultural Perspectives 5(2): 3–9.

85.

Sleeter

Grant

(2009) Making Choices for Multicultural Education: Five Approaches to Race, Class and Gender. Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons.

86.

Spradley

(n.d) Ethnographic interviewing. Available at: http://harvey.binghamton.edu/∼pgay/etext/Ethno_Interviewing.html

87.

Steger

(2009) Globalization: A Very Short Introduction. New York: Oxford University Press.

88.

Strauss

Corbin

(1998) Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for Developing Ground Theory (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage.

89.

Swadener

Wachira

(2003) Governing children and families in Kenya: Losing ground in neoliberal times. In: Bloch MN, Hulqvist K and Popkewitz T (eds). Restructuring the Governing Patterns of the Child, Education and the Welfare State. New York/London: Palgrave Macmillan, 231–257.

90.

Tabulawa

(2003) International aid agencies, learner-centered pedagogy and political democratization: A critique. Comparative Education 29(1): 7–26.

91.

Thomas

Carswell

(2000) Learning through collaboration in a distributed education environment. Educational Technology and Society 3(3): 373–382.

92.

Tobin

Hayashi

(2017) Return interviews and long engagements with ethnographic informants. Anthropology and Education Quarterly 48(3): 318–327.

93.

Tobin

Hsueh

Karasawa

(2009) Preschool in Three Cultures Revisited: China, Japan, and the US. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

94.

Tobin

Davidson

(1989) Preschool in Three Cultures. New Haven,: Yale University Press.

95.

Torquati

Raikes

Huddleston-Casas

Bovaird

Harris

(2011) Family income, parent education, and perceived constraints as predictors of observed program quality and parent rated program quality. Early Childhood Research Quarterly 26(4): 453–464.

96.

Tooley

(2009) The Beautiful Tree: A Personal Journey into How the World’s Poorest People are Educating Themselves. Washington, DC: Cato Institute.

97.

Tooley

(2013) Challenging educational injustice: Grassroots privatization in South Asia and Sub-Saharan Africa. Oxford Review of Education 39(4): 446–463.

98.

UNESCO (2015) EFA Global Monitoring Report 2015: Education for All 2000–2015: Achievements and challenges. Paris: UNESCO. Available at: https://en.unesco.org/gemreport/report/2015/education-all-2000-2015-achievements-and-challenges

99.

UNICEF (2011) UNICEF’s program guidance for early childhood development. Available at: https://www.unicef.org/earlychildhood/files/FINAL_ECD_Programme_Guidance._September._2017.pdf

100.

Walters

(1989) Critical thinking in teacher education: Towards a demythologization. Journal of Teacher Education 40(3): 14–19.

101.

Wamalwa

Burns

(2018) Private schools and student learning achievement in Kenya. Economic in Education 66: 114–124.

102.

Yin

(2003) Case Study Research: Design and Methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage.

Privatization of early childhood education (ECE): Implications for social justice in Nepal and Kenya

Abstract

Keywords

Introduction

(Un)intended consequences

Privatization of early childhood education in Nepal and Kenya: History

Contextualizing the problem: Neocolonialism/Nneoliberalism and globalization

Problem statement

Methodology

Data collection

Data analysis

Findings

Nepal – Quality: A comparison between government and private schools

Nepal – Disparities between government schools and private schools

Kenya – Quality: A comparison between government and private schools

Kenya – Disparities between government and private schools

Discussion

Conclusion

Implications and recommendations

Footnotes

Declaration of conflicting interests

Funding

Notes

ORCID iD

References