Advertisement

International Review of Education

, Volume 64, Issue 5, pp 607–631 | Cite as

The contributions of community learning centres (CLCs) to personal and community development in Myanmar

  • Ai Tam Pham Le
Original Paper
First Online:

Abstract

Community learning centres (CLCs) have been widely established in the Asia-Pacific region as locally managed institutions that offer non-formal educational opportunities and community development activities. Myanmar officially has more than 3,000 centres, which is one of the highest numbers in the region. This article examines the operation of CLCs and their contributions to personal and community development in Padaung, Myanmar. The author’s research is based on six weeks of fieldwork in Myanmar for data collection including semi-structured interviews, focus group discussions and informal conversations. Her findings suggest that CLCs can contribute to the improvement of both individuals’ quality of life and communities’ social capital, which facilitates mutually beneficial collective action. The findings also support the conclusion that CLCs can provide additional educational opportunities beyond the formal system, especially for adults and members of rural communities, e.g. farmers. However, due to constraints in terms of budget, implementing capacity and socio-economic factors, the outreach of CLC activities is still somewhat limited and has yet to reach its full potential.

Keywords

community learning centres social capital community development Myanmar 

Résumé

Contribution des centres communautaires d’apprentissage (CCA) au développement individuel et communautaire au Myanmar – Les centres communautaires d’apprentissage sont largement implantés dans la région mondiale Asie-Pacifique. Il s’agit de structures gérées au niveau local qui proposent des opportunités éducatives non formelles ainsi que des activités de développement communautaire. Le Myanmar possède officiellement plus de 3000 de ces centres, l’un des chiffres les plus élevés dans la région. Le présent article examine le fonctionnement des CCA et leur contribution au développement individuel et communautaire à Padaung (Myanmar). L’étude de l’auteure repose sur un travail de terrain effectué pendant six semaines en vue d’une collecte de données consistant en interviews semi-structurées, discussions avec un groupe témoin et conversations informelles. Ses résultats suggèrent que les CCA peuvent contribuer à améliorer à la fois la qualité de vie des individus et le capital social des communautés, ce qui stimule une action collective mutuellement bénéfique. Les résultats confirment en outre la conclusion selon laquelle les CCA peuvent fournir des opportunités éducatives supplémentaires hors du système formel, notamment aux adultes et aux habitants des communautés rurales, par exemple les fermiers. Néanmoins, en raison des contraintes en termes de budget, de capacités de mise en œuvre et de facteurs socio-économiques, la portée des activités des CCA est toujours quelque peu limitée et doit encore réaliser son plein potentiel.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

Acknowledgements

This article was written based on the findings of a master’s thesis prepared as a part of an Erasmus Master’s Programme by the Autonomous University of Barcelona, the University of Oslo, the University of Amsterdam and the University of Malta. Both the thesis and the article greatly benefited from the feedback given by Professor Lene Buchert from the University of Oslo. The author also would like to thank the two anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments.

References

  1. ACCU (Asia-Pacific Cultural Centre for UNESCO). (1999). National workshop on development of strategies for promoting continuing education through community learning centres in Myanmar. Tokyo: ACCU.Google Scholar
  2. Ahmed, M. (2014). Lifelong learning in a learning society: Are community learning centres the vehicle? In G. Carbonnier, M. Carton & K. King (Eds), Education, learning, training: Critical issues for development. International Development Policy series No. 5 (pp. 102–125). Geneva/Boston, MA: Graduate Institute Publications/Brill-Nijhoff. Retrieved 16 April 2018 from https://journals.openedition.org/poldev/1782.
  3. Chang, E. J., & Yoo, S.-S. (2012). Popular education for people’s empowerment in the Community Learning Center (CLC) project in Bangladesh. Kedi Journal of Educational Policy, 9(2), 363–381.Google Scholar
  4. Coleman, J. S. (1990). Foundations of social theory. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press.Google Scholar
  5. Creswell, J. W. (2013). Qualitative inquiry & research design: Choosing among five approaches (3rd ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  6. Dale, A., & Newman, L. (2010). Social capital: A necessary and sufficient condition for sustainable community development? Community Development Journal, 45(1), 5–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. GoM (Government of Myanmar). (2013). Framework for economic and social reforms: Policy priorities for 2012–15 towards the long-term goals of the national comprehensive development plan. Retrieved 31 May 2017 from https://myanmarcesd.org/2013/01/30/publication-fesr/.
  8. Han, T. (2008). Myanmar education: Challenges, prospects and options. In T. Wilson & M. Skidmore (Eds), Dictatorship, disorder and decline in Myanmar (pp. 151–176). Canberra: Australian National University (ANU) Press. Retrieved 30 April 2018 from http://press-files.anu.edu.au/downloads/press/p102401/pdf/ch071.pdf.
  9. Lall, M. (2016). Understanding reform in Myanmar: People and society in the wake of military rule. London: Hurst & Company.Google Scholar
  10. Le, A. T. P. (2017). The contributions of community learning centres to personal and community development: A case study of three centres in Padaung, Myanmar. Master’s thesis. Erasmus Joint Master Degree on Education Policies for Global Development Department of Education – Faculty of Educational Sciences. University of Oslo. Retrieved 4 May 2018 from https://www.duo.uio.no/handle/10852/57996.
  11. Lin, N. (2002). Social capital: A theory of social structure and action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Lincoln, Y. S., Lynham, S. A., & Guba, E. G. (2011). Paradigmatic controversies, contradictions, and emerging confluences, revisited. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The Sage handbook of qualitative research (4th ed., pp. 97–128). Los Angeles, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  13. MEC (Myanmar Education Consortium). (2013). Research study on community learning centres in Myanmar. Yangon: MEC. Retrieved 4 May 2018 from https://myanmareducationconsortium.org/knowledge-sharing/mec-publications/programme-learning/community-learning-centres-in-myanmar/#more-6434.
  14. Middelborg, J. (2002). Myanmar: The community learning centre experience. Bangkok: UNESCO Asia and Pacific Regional Bureau for Education. Retrieved 16 April 2018 from http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0012/001252/125290e.pdf.
  15. MoE (Ministry of Education). (2013). Comprehensive education sector review (CESR) – Phase 1: Rapid Assessment Report. Nay Pyi Taw: Ministry of Education.Google Scholar
  16. MoE (2014). Education for all 2015 national review report: Myanmar. Nay Pyi Taw: Ministry of Education. Retrieved 16 April 2018 from http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0022/002297/229723e.pdf.
  17. MoE (2016). National education strategic plan (2016–2021): Summary. Nay Pyi Taw: Ministry of Education. Retrieved 16 April 2018 from http://www.moe-st.gov.mm/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/NESP_20Summary_20-_20English_20-_20Final_20-_20Feb_2023.pdf.
  18. Narayan, D. (1999). Bonds and bridges: Social and poverty. Policy Research Working Paper (WPS 2167). Washington, DC: The World Bank. Retrieved 16 April 2018 from http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/989601468766526606/pdf/multi-page.pdf.
  19. NILE & UIL (National Institute for Lifelong Education and UNESCO Institute for Lifelong Learning) (2016). Synthesis report on the state of community learning centres in six Asian Countries: Bangladesh, Indonesia, Mongolia, Republic of Korea, Thailand and Viet Nam. Seoul/Hamburg: NILE/UIL. Retrieved 17 April 2018 from http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0024/002475/247555e.pdf.
  20. OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development). (2013). Multi-dimensional review of Myanmar (Vol. 1), Initial Assessment. Paris: OECD Publishing.Google Scholar
  21. Pretty, J. (2002). Social and human capital for sustainable agriculture. In N. Uphoff (Ed.), Agroecological innovations: Increasing food production with participatory development (pp. 47–57). London/Sterling, VA: Earthscan Publications.Google Scholar
  22. Sakya, T. M., & Meyer, R. (1997). Challenges of education for all in Asia and the Pacific and the APPEAL Response. Bangkok: UNESCO Principal Regional Office for Asia and the Pacific. Retrieved 27 April 2018 from http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0023/002303/230300e.pdf.
  23. Sharma, T. N. (2015). Education for rural transformation: The role of community learning centers in Nepal. Journal of Education and Research, 4(2), 87–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Steinberg, D. I. (2010). Burma/Myanmar: What everyone needs to know. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  25. SVA (Shanti Volunteer Association). (2016). One book can empower one child. Shanti Volunteer Association Annual Report 2015. Tokyo: SVA. Retrieved 31 May 2017 from http://sva.or.jp/english/pdf/report2015.pdf.
  26. Thaung Tut. (1999). Continuing education (CE) through Community learning centres (CLCs) in Myanmar. National workshop on development of strategies for promoting continuing education through community learning centres in Myanmar. Tokyo: Asia-Pacific Cultural Centre for UNESCO (ACCU).Google Scholar
  27. UIL (UNESCO Institute for Lifelong Learning). (2010). Belém framework for action: Harnessing the power and potential of adult learning and education for a viable future. Hamburg: UIL. Retrieved 25 April 2018 from http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0018/001877/187789m.pdf.
  28. UIL. (2014). Community matters: Fulfilling learning potentials for young men and women. Hamburg: UIL.Google Scholar
  29. UNDP (United Nations Development Programme). (2012). The human development initiative in Myanmar. Fact sheet. Yangon: UNDP Myanmar. Retrieved 27 April 2018 from http://www.mm.undp.org/content/myanmar/en/home/operations/projects/poverty_reduction/HDI.html.
  30. UNESCO (United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization). (2002). Innovations in non-formal education: A review of selected initiatives from the Asia-Pacific region. Bangkok: UNESCO Bangkok.Google Scholar
  31. UNESCO. (2003). UNESCO Executive Board. Hundred and sixty-sixth session, 19 March. 166 EX/41. Comments by the Director-General on the external evaluation reports submitted in the 2000–2001 and the 2002–2003 biennia. Paris: UNESCO. Retrieved 17 April 2018 from http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0012/001297/129747e.pdf.
  32. UNESCO. (2008). Community learning centres: Country report from Asia. Bangkok: UNESCO Bangkok.Google Scholar
  33. UNESCO. (2011). Sustainability of community learning centres: Community ownership and support. Bangkok: UNESCO Bangkok.Google Scholar
  34. UNESCO. (2013a). Community learning centres: Asia-Pacific regional conference report 2013. Bangkok: UNESCO Bangkok.Google Scholar
  35. UNESCO. (2013b). Country report of Cambodia. Regional conference on community learning centers (CLCs): National qualifications frameworks for lifelong learning and skills development 19–21 June, Bangkok, Thailand. Bangkok: UNESCO Bangkok. Retrieved 25 April 2018 from http://www.unescobkk.org/fileadmin/user_upload/appeal/Literacy_and_Conrtinuing_Education/CLC/reports_and_publications/2013/CAMBODIA.pdf.
  36. UNESCO. (2013c). Indonesian country report. Regional conference on community learning centers (CLCs): National qualifications frameworks for lifelong learning and skills development 19–21 June, Bangkok, Thailand. Bangkok: UNESCO Bangkok. Retrieved 25 April 2018 from http://www.unescobkk.org/fileadmin/user_upload/appeal/Literacy_and_Conrtinuing_Education/CLC/reports_and_publications/2013/INDONESIA_1.pdf.
  37. UNESCO. (2013d). Country report community learning centres in Lao PDR. Bangkok: UNESCO Bangkok. Retrieved 25 April 2018 from http://www.unescobkk.org/fileadmin/user_upload/appeal/Literacy_and_Conrtinuing_Education/CLC/reports_and_publications/2013/LAOS.pdf.
  38. UNESCO. (2013e). Myanmar country report. Regional conference on community learning centers (CLCs): National qualifications frameworks for lifelong learning and skills development 19–21 June, Bangkok, Thailand. Bangkok: UNESCO Bangkok. Retrieved 25 April 2018 from http://www.unescobkk.org/fileadmin/user_upload/appeal/Literacy_and_Conrtinuing_Education/CLC/reports_and_publications/2013/MYANMAR.pdf.
  39. UNESCO. (2013f). Report on community learning centers (CLCs) national qualifications frameworks for lifelong learning and skills development Republic of the Philippines. Bangkok: UNESCO Bangkok. Retrieved 25 April 2018 from http://www.unescobkk.org/fileadmin/user_upload/appeal/Literacy_and_Conrtinuing_Education/CLC/reports_and_publications/2013/PHILIPPINES.pdf.
  40. UNESCO. (2013g). Thailand country report. CLC regional conference: NQFs for lifelong learning and skills development. Bangkok: UNESCO Bangkok, Office of the Non-Formal and Informal Education. Retrieved 25 April 2018 from http://www.unescobkk.org/fileadmin/user_upload/appeal/Literacy_and_Conrtinuing_Education/CLC/reports_and_publications/2013/THAILAND.pdf.
  41. UNESCO. (2013h). Vietnam’s country report on community learning centers (CLCs). Regional conference on community learning centers (CLCs): National qualifications frameworks for lifelong learning and skills development 19–21 June, Bangkok, Thailand. Bangkok: UNESCO Bangkok. Retrieved 25 April 2018 from http://www.unescobkk.org/fileadmin/user_upload/appeal/Literacy_and_Conrtinuing_Education/CLC/reports_and_publications/2013/VIETNAM.pdf.
  42. Uphoff, N. (2000). Understanding social capital: Learning from the analysis and experience of participation. In P. Dasgupta & I. Serageldin (Eds.), Social capital: A multifaceted perspective (pp. 215–249). Washington, DC: World Bank.Google Scholar
  43. Vollmann, W. (2015). Community learning centres in Bangladesh: Lessons learnt and avenues for future action. Bangladesh Education Journal, 14(1), 41–52.Google Scholar
  44. Woolcock, M., & Narayan, D. (2000). Social capital: Implications for development theory, research, and policy. World Bank Research Observer, 15(2), 225–249. Retrieved 16 April 2018 from http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/961231468336675195/pdf/766490JRN0WBRO00Box374385B00PUBLIC0.pdf.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Yin, R. K. (2009). Case study research: Design and methods (4th ed., Vol. 5). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  46. Zhang, W. (2011). Reaching the marginalized rural poor: A study of multi-purpose community learning center in Yunnan. China. Bangladesh Education Journal, 10(1), 47–58.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V., part of Springer Nature, and UNESCO Institute for Lifelong Learning 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Melbourne Graduate School of EducationUniversity of MelbourneMelbourneAustralia

Personalised recommendations

Cite article

Buy options