1  

Myanmar/Burma  Indigenous  Network  for  Education  in  Karen  Areas  (MINE  –  Karen  areas)  

 Response  to  

   

The  Republic  of  the  Union  of  Myanmar  National  Education  Law    

 and      

The  Basic  Education  Law  of  the  Republic  of  the  Union  of  Myanmar  2nd  Draft  (2014)  

 31  August  2014  

         

Myanmar/Burma  Indigenous  Network  for  Education  (MINE)  Karen  areas  include:  

 • Karen  Education  Department  (KED)  • Karen  Refugee  Committee  Education  Entity  (KRCEE)  • Karen  Teacher  Working  Group  (KTWG)    • Karen  Women’s  Organization  (KWO)  

   

                   

       

  2  

1. Introduction      

1.1. The   four   organizations   represented   in   this   document   welcome   the  chance  to  provide  feedback  on  the  drafts  of  the  National  Education  Law  as   well   as   the   Basic   Education   Law.     We   are   heartened   to   see   the  inclusion   of   several   qualitative,   inclusive   and   progressive   education  measures.  We  would   also   like   to   express   appreciation   in   being   able   to  provide   insight   and   our   perspective   in   other   aspects   of   the   draft   laws  where  we  believe  further  discussion  and  clarity  would  be  to  the  benefit  of  all.  We  submit  this  response  for  your  consideration.    

1.2. Myanmar’s  National  Education  Law  (NEL)  was  passed  by  Parliament  on  July  31st,  2014.  It  is  currently  awaiting  approval  from  the  President.  The  second   draft   of   the   Basic   Education   Law   (BEL)   has   been   circulated   for  review  and  comment.  Our  organizations  represent  the  interests  of  Karen  people   and   the   administration   of  Karen  basic   education   across   Eastern  Myanmar/Burma  and  in  refugee  camps  in  Thailand.    

 The   scope   of   work   represented   by   the   collective   organizations   here  includes:    • Administration  of  education  for  Karen  refugees  in  Thailand.  • Administration  of   the  Karen  national  education  system  within  Karen  

areas  of  Eastern  Burma  including  Karen  State,  Mon  State,  Bago  (East)  Region  and  Tanitharyi  Region.  

• Administration   of   early   childhood   care   and   development   for   Karen  children  across  Eastern  Myanmar/Burma  and  in  the  refugee  camps  

• Provision  of  pre-­‐service  and  in-­‐service  teacher  training  and  education  assistance   in   the   form   of   students’   and   teaching   materials,   sports  equipment   for   schools   and   teacher   subsidies   provided   to   over   1500  Karen  Schools.    

 1.3. Our   response   to   the  National  Education  Law  and  Draft  Basic  Education  

Law  has  been  developed  based  on  our  collective  experience  working  for  education   of   the   Karen   people.   Our   response   is   also   informed   by   this  group’s   experience   and   understanding   of   the   situation   of   other  indigenous   groups   and   organizations   in   Myanmar   through   our  membership   with   the   Myanmar/Burma   Indigenous   Network   for  Education  (MINE).    

 1.4. Due  to  time  constraints  we  have  not  provided  an  exhaustive  assessment  

of   the   two   laws,   but  have   focused  our   comments  on  our  most  pressing  concerns,  namely:  • Implementation   of   a   Mother   Tongue   Based   -­‐   Multilingual   Education  

(MTB-­‐MLE)  system  across  Myanmar/Burma.    • Decentralization   of   the   education   system   and   the   strengthening   of  

local  administration.  • Use  of  culturally  relevant,  locally  developed  school  curriculum.  

 1.5. We  have  also  highlighted  2  other  areas  of  the  education  laws,  namely:    

• Teachers;    

  3  

• Types  of  schools      2. Mother  Tongue  Based  –  Multilingual  Education  (MTB-­‐MLE)  

 2.1. The   MTB-­‐MLE   approach   supported   by   this   group   is   based   on  

international   research   and   best   practice   and   leads   to   the   best   possible  learning  outcomes  for  the  children  of  Myanmar/Burma.  We  believe  that  all  children  should  be  supported  through  the  basic  education  system  to  be  proficient   in  Myanmar,   the   language  of   the  Union,   their  own  Mother  Tongue   (if   not   Myanmar)   and   the   official   language   of   ASEAN,   English.      The  Draft  Basic  Education  Law  (BEL),  Section  3  (f)  promotes  proficiency  in   Myanmar   language   and   improved   proficiency   in   ethnic   languages.  Current   drafting   of   this   section  promotes  Myanmar   language   as   having  primary   importance  over  a   child's  own  mother   tongue.  Drafting   should  reflect   equal   importance   of   proficiency   in   child's   Mother   tongue   and  Myanmar  language  to  support  child's  well-­‐being  and  ability  to  prosper  as  a  citizen  of  the  Union  of  Myanmar.1  

 2.2. We  welcome  the  inclusion  of  BEL  Section  4  (g)  that  contemplates  the  use  

of   ethnic   languages   as  medium  of   instruction.       The   same  point   is   later  made   in   Section   19   (g)   when   dealing   with   the   implementation   of  curriculum.    We   oppose   BEL   Section   4   (f)   stating   that  Myanmar   is   the  medium  of  instruction  at  the  basic  education  level.    However,  the  drafting  of   the   law   promotes   Myanmar   as   language   of   instruction   with   local  languages  being  secondary  and  does  not  support  an  MTB-­‐MLE  approach.  In   our   view,   mother   tongue   as   language   of   instruction   is   of   primary  importance   to   ensure   positive   student-­‐learning   outcomes   and   is   not  simply  a  supplemental  tool  in  the  transmission  of  the  curriculum.    

 2.3. NEL   Sections   43   apparently   provides   for   Myanmar-­‐English   bilingual  

education   with   NEL   Section   44   including   ethnic   languages   by  arrangement   at   the   Region/State   level.     This   seems   to   contradict   BEL  Section   4   (g).     This   package   of   laws   does   not   go   far   enough   toward  promoting   the   importance   of   the   mother   tongue   as   language   of  instruction  as  part  of  an  MTB-­‐MLE  approach.  We  recommend  amending  BEL  Section  4  (f  &  g)  by  combining  them  to  create  a  single  subsection  as  follows:   "Myanmar   language   and   local   language   are   the   medium   of  instruction  in  basic  education  school,  pursuant  to  an  MTB-­‐MLE  approach.  Language  and  method  of  instruction  will  be  determined  based  on  needs  of  local  students."    

 2.4. Children  perform  better  in  all  subjects  and  develop  increased  proficiency  

in  other   languages  when   taught   in   their  mother   tongue.  Mother   tongue  languages   should   be   used   as   medium   of   instruction   in   lower   primary  school.    Where  Myanmar  is  not  the  mother  tongue  of  students,  Myanmar  

                                                                                                               1  “Language  and  education:  the  missing  link-­‐  How  the  language  used  in  schools  threatens  the  achievement  of  Education  For  All;”  Helen  Pinnock  with  research  by  Gowri  Vijayakumar;  Save  the  Children  UK  and  CfBT  Education  Trust;  2009.  See  more  at:  http://www.savethechildren.org.uk/sites/default/files/docs/Language_Education_the_Missing_Link_1.pdf  

  4  

should   first  be   introduced  as  a  subject  and   then  added  as  an  additional  language  of  instruction  in  later  years.    Students  whose  mother  tongue  is  Myanmar  should  also   learn  an  ethnic   language  as  a  subject   in  school   to  promote   common  understanding  amongst   all   groups  within  Myanmar’s  diverse  Union.2  3  

 2.5. Local   community   based   school  management   bodies,   alert   to   the   ethnic  

make-­‐up   and   needs   of   the   local   community,   should   determine   the  languages   to   be   taught   in   schools,   the   languages   of   instruction   and   the  way   that   the   languages   of   instruction   should   be   managed   in   a  multilingual   classroom.   MTB-­‐MLE   would   be   facilitated   by  decentralization   of   education   management,   both   of   which   should   be  embedded  in  the  law.  Decentralization  is  discussed  below.  

3. Decentralization    

3.1. NEL  Section  57(a)  makes  central  government  ministries  responsible  for  the   supervision   and  management   of   basic   education   schools.   The  Basic  Education  Council,  established  and  made  responsible  by  BEL  Section  8(a)  for   basic   education   level   management,   is   made   up   of   members  predominantly   from   the   Central   Government   as   stipulated   in   Section  8(b).  BEL  Sections  24  &  25  make  most  aspects  of  school  management  the  responsibility   of   the   relevant   Central   Government  Ministries.   The   laws  should  be  revised  to  devolve  responsibility,  ensuring  that  the  education  system   in   Myanmar   remains   responsive   to   the   needs   of   local  communities   and   people.     We   are   advocating   for   school-­‐based  management   under   local   school   boards,   made   up   of   parents,   teachers,  school  principals  and  other  respected  community  members  and  leaders.  These  school  boards  would  provide  management  support  with  oversight  from  different  levels  of  government.4    

3.2. BEL  Section  23  allows  for  some  distribution  of  duty  by  aligning  with  the  Regional  Administration  Organizations,  which  are  defined  in  BEL  Section  2(aa).     There   are  well-­‐developed   education   systems  organized  by  Non-­‐State  Actor  Education  Departments   that   fall   outside  of   the  definition   in  Section   2   (aa).     These   existing   administration   structures   should   be  recognized,   supported   and   developed   under   a   decentralized   national  education  system  and  not  replaced  or  overridden.5    

 

                                                                                                               2  “Closer  to  Home:  How  to  help  schools  in  low-­‐  and  middle-­‐income  countries  respond  to  children’s  language  needs;”  Helen  Pinnock,  et  al;  Save  the  Children  UK  and  CfBT  Education  Trust;  2011.  See  more  at:  http://www.savethechildren.org.uk/resources/online-­‐library/closer-­‐home#sthash.cJxejbOs.dpuf  3  “Mother  Tongue  as  Bridge  Language  of  Instruction;”  World  Bank  and  SEAMEO  (South  East  Asian  Ministers  of  Education  Organization);  2011  .See  more  at  http://www.seameo.org/images/stories/Publications/Project_Reports/MT_compendium_Final_Book-­‐08-­‐05-­‐09.pdf  4  "Local  participation  in  school  management  improves  accountability  and  responsiveness,  and  fosters  resource  mobilization"  Education  and  Decentralization;  Jennie  Litvack.  See  more  at  http://www.ciesin.org/decentralization/English/Issues/Education.html  5  "EQUIP2  State-­‐of-­‐the-­‐Art  Knowledge  in  Education:  A  Guide  to  Education  Project  Design  Based  on  a  Comprehensive  Literature  and  Project  Review:  Decentralization;"  John  C.  Weidman  and  Robin  DePietro-­‐Jurand;  USAID.  See  more  at:  http://www.epdc.org/sites/default/files/documents/EQUIP2%20SOAK%20-­‐%20Decentralization.pdf  

  5  

3.3. Section  4  (m)  of   the  NEL  makes  the  path  to  decentralization  dependent  on  a  subjective  assessment,  which  will  be  made  at  the  central  level,  about  the  readiness  of  education  staff  to  support  decentralization.  The  path  to  decentralization  should  be  considered  at  the  outset  and  included  within  the   NEL   and   BEL.   The   law   should   support   capacity   development   of  education  staff  to  implement  a  decentralized  system,  but  their  readiness  should  not  be  a  precursor  to  the  decentralization.    

   4. Local  Curriculum  

4.1. We  welcome  the  inclusion  of  NEL  Section  39  (f  and  g)  that  provides  for  standard  setting  at   the  national   level  and  development  of  curriculum  at  the  local  level.    We  are  further  encouraged  by  the  inclusion  of  Section  39  (h)   which   suggests   the   curriculum   be   relevant   and   related   to   the   real  lives  of  students  and  their  communities.  However,  Section  39  needs  to  be  clarified   and   extended   to   ensure   genuine   and   full   local   participation   in  the  contextualization  of  the  curriculum.      

4.2. BEL   Section   19(i)   dictates   Region/State   responsibility   for   textbook  development.    However,  given  the  ethnic  and  linguistic  diversity  of  most  States/Regions,   a  more   localized/decentralized   approach   is   required   to  respond   to   the   diverse   range   of   needs.   The   development   of   ethnic  textbooks  should  include  full  participation  of  knowledgeable  people  from  local  areas.    

4.3. Despite   the  provision   for   local   curriculum  development   in   the  NEL,   the  BEL  in  Chapter  6  sets  up  a  highly  centralized  Basic  Education  Curriculum,  Syllabus  and  Text  Book  Committee.  The  Committee,  which  is  comprised  mainly   of   members   coming   from   central   level   of   government,   is  responsible   for   the   full   range   of   curriculum   development   and   the   BEL  does   not   allow   for   any   local   representation   or   input   into   curriculum  development,  despite  Sections  39  (f  and  g)  of  the  NEL  mentioned  above  in   paragraph   4.1.   Section   18   (b)(ii)   allows   for   the   performance   of  curricular   syllabus   duties   by   forming   curriculum   teams   at   the  Region/State   level,   however,   Chapter   6   should   be   revised   to   allow   for  curriculum  development  locally.  

 5. Teachers  

5.1. We  are  concerned  with  NEL  Section  50  (c)  which  overlooks  the  value  of  existing   teachers   from   ethnic   areas   who   often   have   had   extensive  internationally   recognized   teacher   training;   significant   skills   and  experience;   and,   strong   knowledge   of   and   relationships   with   students  and  communities  in  which  they  are  involved  but  do  not  hold  government  recognized  certification.    This  is  also  a  crucial  issue  for  returning  refugee  teachers  whose  qualifications  should  be  recognized  upon  their  return.  

 5.2. NEL   Section  53   centralizes   assignment   of   duties   and   responsibilities   of  

teachers.   The   central   government  ministries   are   far   removed   from   the  day   to   day   running   of   schools   and   are   poorly   placed   to   do   this.   This  

  6  

should  occur  at   the   local   school   level  or  by  school  boards  charged  with  oversight  of  local  schools.    

 6. School  Types  

 6.1. NEL   Section   34   and   BEL   Section   7   describes   school   types.   However,  

neither  law  clearly  acknowledges  or  makes  provision  for  the  existence  of  Community   Schools   or   National   Schools.   Community   Schools   are  autonomously   organized   and   managed   by   individual   communities.  National   Schools   are   similar   to   Community   Schools   but   are   under   the  administration   of   ethnic   Non-­‐State   Actors'   department   or   other   ethnic  nationalities'   organizing   bodies.     The   law   should   acknowledge   these  school  types  and  should  also  revisit  and  clarify  the  definitions  of  existing  school  types  in  s.34.  Further,  the  development  of  the  national  education  system   should   be   built   around   the   existing   education   management  structures,   bodies   and   schools   and   not   override   them.   It   is   therefore  crucial  that  the  NEL  and  BEL  recognize  these  schools  and  develop  a  plan  for  education  in  ethnic  areas  with  them.