Nancy Kendall

Vulnerable children, communities and schools: lessons from three HIV/AIDS affected areas

The growing number of children made vulnerable by HIV/AIDS threatens the achievement of Education for All (EFA) and Millennium Development goals. Policy recommendations assign schools key roles in meeting the needs of vulnerable children, but there is a dearth of evidence about how vulnerable children and schools interact in AIDS affected communities. Case studies of schools and vulnerable children in Kenya, Malawi and Zimbabwe show that although schools are materially and symbolically well‐positioned to serve as the institutional base to meet the needs of vulnerable children, schools are not accountable for these children and have not reorganised or built capacity to meet their special needs. The Malawi and Zimbabwe cases show that elimination of fees, passive open door policies and exhortations are insufficient measures to bring and keep these children in school. The Kenya case study suggests that investments in long term, well‐resourced local partnerships can be effective.

Education for All Meets Political Democratization: Free Primary Education and the Neoliberalization of the Malawian School and State

In recent years sub-Saharan African states, including Malawi, have adopted the Education for All (EFA) goal of universal, fee-free primary education (UPE). The EFA process is often linked to the expansion and sustainability of universal rights, democratic processes, and political systems. The EFA policies have also been tied, discursively and in practice, to officially democratic or democratizing elections. In fact, many international EFA declarations claim a relationship between UPE and political democratization. In official documents, UPE is contrasted with, and judged inherently more democratic than, colonial, elite-creating, limited-access education systems, and UPE is also envisioned as creating an environment in which political democracy can flourish. For example, the World Bank (2001, 8) claims that “broad and equitable access to education is . . . essential for sustained progress towards democracy, civic participation, and better governance.” The purported egalitarian and democratizing effects of EFA are regularly touted in arguments made for international support of EFA. At the same time, measures of good governance and political democratization are increasingly included among the aid criteria considered by international donors. And yet, despite the supposed linkage between EFA and political democratization, there have been few empirical studies of the effects of EFA on democratization, or vice versa. The research reported here explores the case of UPE and political democratization in Malawi, a country in central eastern Africa. Malawi offers analytic opportunities to examine the relation between EFA

International Development Education

From moralizing calls for its end (Esteva, 1992), to critiques of its discourses and practices (Samoff, 1999), to recent arguments for the potential necessity of its continuance (Ferguson, 2002), the effects and goodness of the fi eld of international development (education) has been debated for decades. Despite these critiques, it has witnessed a renaissance in the past 15 years. This chapter describes the history of the fi eld of international development education, examines current practices and trends, and discusses emerging questions for the fi eld. It concludes that there are both legitimate concerns about the effects of international development education practices and reason for cautious optimism about some current practices, particularly those that take account of past critiques and attempt to restructure the relations and activities undertaken in the name of development education. International development education continues, however, to rely primarily on out-of-date discourses, rationales for its existence, and ways of dividing up the world; without addressing these issues in an inclusive manner, international development education funding, policies, and programming will rarely support positive change, will in some cases make things worse, and will lose its relevance and widespread support. Before continuing, I briefl y discuss the terms “international,” “development,” and “education”.

Localizing democracy and good governance

Since 1989, a growing international consensus has claimed that democracy provides the best system of state governance. This trend shows itself in the widespread endorsement of a transnational “universal human rights” approach, which advocates civil liberties and equal political participation in international debates about state sovereignty, in international foreign aid funding criteria, and in the growing number of countries that now present themselves as democracies. Given the increasing importance of “democracy and good governance” in international donor decision-making, in the degree of support regimes receive from the broader international community, and in the stance of individual nation-states, some new questions must be addressed. What do these terms mean to different actors? What are the perceived outcomes of “democracy and good governance”? How is its use as a condition for aid and international acceptance affecting the political, social, economic, and cultural fabrics of new democracies? What can be done to alleviate some of the “unintended consequences” of democratization and liberalization programs now evident in new democracies? And what can these unintended consequences tell us about the possible weaknesses or dangers of current international models of democracy and good governance for global peace, prosperity, and health?

Professor Kazamias, Andreas, Andy: An Introduction and Celebration in Three Parts

This special issue of European Education honors one of the founding figures in comparative and international education, Professor Andreas Kazamias. Andreas has often described himself as a scholar of multiple identities: a Greek Cypriot; a humanist intellectual and Socratic “gadfly”; a moral reformer; a university professor of comparative education; and a founder and key intellectual shaper of the field of comparative education, among others. This special issue is a celebration of Andreas’s life and career, and the multifaceted ways that his various identities have touched and shaped the field of comparative education and generations of comparative education scholars and their ideas. The special issue includes contributions that explore, utilize, and build on key concepts and figures that Andreas has developed (such as paideia of the soul, the modern cosmopolis, and epimythion); it also includes contributions that reflect on Andreas’s tremendous impact on the lives of his colleagues and students, and reveal new facets of his identity, such as rabid American football fan. The introduction mirrors the diversity of contributions in the special issue, touching first on Andreas’s career as a professor in comparative education, then reflecting on traveling and thinking with Andreas, and finally describing the themes around which the special issue is built. It includes some of the key aesthetic materials around which Andreas has organized his work, and which he reminds us are essential to the construction of a “democratic homo humanus” and to the cultivation of the attitudes, dispositions, and virtues that make us fully human. none defined

Stories Small and Tall: A Celebration of Andreas Kazamias’s Praxis

Thirteen years ago, I was hired by the Department of Educational Policy Studies at the University of Wisconsin–Madison, as an assistant professor in comparative and international education (CIE). Andreas—Andy—had joined the department in 1964, as one of its founding members. He was retiring after 40 years on the faculty, and I was his replacement to move the University of Wisconsin (UW) CIE program forward. Andy was not thrilled. Given my background in the more social scientific traditions of CIE, he was deeply concerned that I would move the program in the directions that he has so eloquently argued against for most of his career. So, just as he has done for the field more generally, he began an active campaign to try to assure that UW–Madison’s program would continue to embody a humanistic approach to CIE. This essay is a reflection on and tribute to what I have learned by hearing and trying to understand and respond to Andy’s clarion call for a humanistic approach to CIE. Andy has shaped our department and the field of CIE since its inception. He was a founding member of the Comparative and International Education Society (CIES), CIES president during 1970–1971, the editor of the Comparative Education Review from 1970 to 1978, a prolific author, a phenomenal pedagogue who crafted a range of key courses at the undergraduate and graduate levels, and a gifted and beloved mentor to many students. But for me, Andy’s greatest gift has been in his clarion “gadfly” call for us to attend to the “paideia of the soul”—“that inner process through which the individual moves from naive consciousness to reflection and identity” (Abbs, 1994, p. 21). Andy explains that this movement is generated through education that develops “aesthetic knowledge, ethical dispositions, and civic virtues” (Kazamias, 2017). Here, I want to share how Andy crafted a paideia of the soul as a colleague. The stories through which I try to display his craft also represent an effort to embody what I have seen Andy do so many times: bring to life a humanistic approach to CIE. Andy does this in part by demanding that the aesthetic be given the weight it deserves. He acts out a debate between Socrates and Freire, recites from Othello, shows images that contrast the best and worst of what we can be as humans and as educators, and frames his trenchant critique of the CIE field through poetry and mythological terms (Kazamias, 2009). When we practice presentations for conferences, he stops us and asks us to attend to the style with which we present, our diction, none defined