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.
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, access via your institution.
Buy single article
Instant access to the full article PDF.
Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.
UNESCO’s Asia-Pacific Programme of Education for All (APPEAL) was launched in 1987. Its goal “is the promotion of literacy, primary and continuing education as interdependent components of basic education, and as a precondition of sustainable human development and poverty eradication” (UNESCO 2003, p. 18).
The Bélem Framework for Action is the outcome document of the Sixth International Conference on Adult Education (CONFINTEA VI), one in a series of UNESCO International Conferences on Adult Education held every ten or twelve years since 1949 to improve and enlarge education and learning opportunities for adults, and to develop adult education as a profession (NILE and UIL 2016, p. 6)
For the full list of countries, visit http://www.unescobkk.org/education/literacy-and-lifelong-learning/community-learning-centres-clcs/country-cases/?utm_campaign=cdcc4a7343-Newsletter_5_30_125_30_2012&utm_medium=email&utm_source=Master%20Newsletter%20List [accessed 11 May 2017].
For a full list of ASEAN member countries, visit http://asean.org/asean/asean-member-states/ [accessed 8 May 2018].
The terms Myanmar and Burma have both been used to refer to the same country. The former was adopted by the military government in 1988 and has since been accepted by the United Nations. The latter was mostly used by the political opposition (Steinberg 2010). This article uses the designation “Myanmar” to refer to the Republic of the Union of Myanmar without any political intention.
Myanmar gained independence from British colonial rule in 1948. Inhabited by 130 ethnic groups (MoE 2014), who speak different languages and are of various religious faiths, the country has experienced many outbreaks of civil unrest, both before, during and after military appropriation of government in 1962. Though the British education system, a legacy from colonial times, had resulted in an educated population with a good proficiency in English in the mid-20th century, standards dropped rapidly under military rule, which was socialist and very strict and lasted until 2011. The newly elected civilian-led government has undertaken reforms in several sectors to improve the socio-economic situation in the country. In education, several international organisations have been assisting the reform process both financially and technically (Lall 2016).
The Human Development Initiative (HDI) ran from 1993 to 2013. Focusing on livelihoods support, small village infrastructure, water and sanitation, and HIV/AIDS prevention, it aimed for grass-roots level impact in poor communities in a sustainable manner (UNDP 2012).
The term second-chance education refers to opportunities offered to people who did not complete formal schooling during their childhood and youth.
As a result of the restructuring of the education departments, part of MERB was merged with the Department of Human Resources and Educational Planning to become the Department of Research and Innovation (DRI); the other part was merged with the Department of Basic Education to become DAE (Personal communication with a DAE staff member in July 2016). A full list of the departments can be found on the MoE website: http://engmoest.moe-st.gov.mm/ [accessed 8 May 2018].
However, this kind of ideal scenario is rare. According to my interviews with MLRC, this guidance was not in place in all townships at the time of my research, since the Ministry does not have the capacity to supervise all CLCs and needs external support to do so.
When I expressed my research interest in CLCs to a local contact in Myanmar, who was a DAE official, this person put me in contact with MLRC as she had heard about their CLCs project with SVA. The CLC project was fostering three CLCs in Padaung (all of which are included in this study) and was one of several projects co-supported by SVA and MLRC without any government assistance. At the time I concluded my fieldwork, SVA had no plan to continue their financial support from 2017 onwards, but the local residents were committed and confident in their ability to carry on the activities. My study was conducted independently from the project.
In a nutshell, constructivism is concerned with how learners construct meaning from experience; relativism is concerned with an awareness of the influence of context on research findings; and subjectivism is concerned with an awareness that reality is always a perception rather than a universal truth.
Purposeful sampling involves selecting participants who are likely to provide relevant information to a research project. Convenient sampling, in this case, involved selecting participants who were available and willing to participate in the data collection for this study. At the time of my field visit, these two methods were deemed most suitable for the purpose of focusing on particularly relevant information within a constrained period of time, albeit possibly limiting the range of perspectives I would be able to capture.
The questions I prepared for the semi-structured interviews are included as annexes in Le (2017, pp. 102–109).
As mentioned in the methodology, the semi-structured interviews and focus group discussions were carried out in Burmese and translated into English for the purposes of this study.
For a detailed discussion of the stability issue of a social structure, see Coleman (1990).
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.
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.
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.
Coleman, J. S. (1990). Foundations of social theory. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press.
Creswell, J. W. (2013). Qualitative inquiry & research design: Choosing among five approaches (3rd ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Sage.
Dale, A., & Newman, L. (2010). Social capital: A necessary and sufficient condition for sustainable community development? Community Development Journal, 45(1), 5–21.
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/.
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.
Lall, M. (2016). Understanding reform in Myanmar: People and society in the wake of military rule. London: Hurst & Company.
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.
Lin, N. (2002). Social capital: A theory of social structure and action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
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.
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.
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.
MoE (Ministry of Education). (2013). Comprehensive education sector review (CESR) – Phase 1: Rapid Assessment Report. Nay Pyi Taw: Ministry of Education.
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.
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.
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.
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.
OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development). (2013). Multi-dimensional review of Myanmar (Vol. 1), Initial Assessment. Paris: OECD Publishing.
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.
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.
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.
Steinberg, D. I. (2010). Burma/Myanmar: What everyone needs to know. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
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.
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).
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.
UIL. (2014). Community matters: Fulfilling learning potentials for young men and women. Hamburg: UIL.
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.
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.
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.
UNESCO. (2008). Community learning centres: Country report from Asia. Bangkok: UNESCO Bangkok.
UNESCO. (2011). Sustainability of community learning centres: Community ownership and support. Bangkok: UNESCO Bangkok.
UNESCO. (2013a). Community learning centres: Asia-Pacific regional conference report 2013. Bangkok: UNESCO Bangkok.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Vollmann, W. (2015). Community learning centres in Bangladesh: Lessons learnt and avenues for future action. Bangladesh Education Journal, 14(1), 41–52.
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.
Yin, R. K. (2009). Case study research: Design and methods (4th ed., Vol. 5). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
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.
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.
About this article
Cite this article
Le, A.T.P. The contributions of community learning centres (CLCs) to personal and community development in Myanmar. Int Rev Educ 64, 607–631 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11159-018-9721-2