VOICE ZONE THEORY IN EDUCATIONAL PLANNING

VOICE ZONE THEORY IN EDUCATIONAL PLANNING

It was 2004 when I joined AIOU and at that time I was enrolled at the Institute of Education, University of London. My major focus was how the policy of education is made and how the curriculum is developed, designed and enacted in classrooms. For past twenty years I have been working closely with the ministry of education, higher education commission and academy of educational planning and management i.e. now working as Pakistan Institute of Education. It took me almost ten years to realize how we are suffering badly because exclusion of local voices in educational policy and curriculum planning. In 2014, I organized with HEC the first forum for focus group discussions on curriculum planning in which subject specialists and educationists from all around the country participated. But soon after that I was told that the documented outcomes were trashed, while another body of a few selected people were sitting in closed doors meeting and preparing another document. It was an eye opening experience and gave me first hand evidence of two major issues in policy reforms– one is the colonial or dictator mindset prevailing and strengthened by the bureaucratic structures; and second the reforms are donor driven and ending up in policy borrowing. Then there is a whole range of reasons that can be given for exclusion of local voices in policy and curriculum planning in Pakistan.

Pakistan has historically had a highly centralized governance system where significant decision-making power resides at the federal or to some extent at provincial levels. This centralization often means that local communities have limited influence over policies that directly affect them. The bureaucratic system in Pakistan can be complex and opaque, making it difficult for local communities to navigate and participate in policy-making processes. Development projects and policies are designed and implemented using a top-down approach, with little input from local population. This exclusive planning led to initiatives that are not aligned with local challenges and prospects. If ever some dialogues and feedback is collected the lack of transparency and accountability further alienates local voices. Local governance in Pakistan is influenced by political patronage. Political elites at the national and provincial levels may prioritize their interests or those of their supporters over the needs of local people. There are inadequate institutional mechanisms to facilitate local participation. For example, local councils and other grassroots institutions are disabled or underfunded; and lack the autonomy or authority to influence policy decisions.

People only vote once in five years for electing the members of provincial and national assembly. They do not know any further mode and method for raising voice and influencing public policies. The policies do not reflect the diverse needs of Pakistan's multi-ethnic population, resulting in some communities and minorities being overlooked and other pressure and power groups being favored. It is a huge power structure in which only the landlords, industrialists, business tycoons and some mafias have a say across Pakistan. While civil society organizations play a crucial role in advocating for local issues, their reach and impact can be limited by regulatory constraints, lack of funding, or political repression. Ethnic and cultural minorities often face systemic marginalization, which leads to silencing their voices. High levels of poverty and illiteracy, especially in rural areas, hinders effective participation in policy-making. Local communities lack the resources, education, or networks to advocate for their interests effectively.

Theoretical Assumptions

The initial framework of voice zone theory was introduced in the final chapter of my PhD thesis in 2013. At that time, it was based on a phenomenological research study that included extensive travelling, thick descriptions, interviews and visual ethnographic techniques which provided detailed qualitative data for grounded theory analyses. From Jan 2014 to Dec 2023, I spent ten years further in ethnographic and phenomenological studies of educational planning and policy making at federal level. During these ten years I was able to meet and converse with the people in all provinces and regions of Pakistan who are included and excluded in the processes of decision making. I worked closely with the minority representatives and travelled to the farthest south and north of the country. I am working further on these theoretical assumptions based on grounded theory research. Here I am presenting the first draft in the form of this visual representation. The diagram represents emblematic zones and levels of voice and silence in the process of planning and policy making.?

The red zone in the periphery contains complete silence, these are the marginalized and silenced groups and we go inward the people tend to speak in the yellow zone but are not heard much. It is their resilience and persistence to make a difference that they are still vocal. They are articulated and well-versed people and communities of meaning and communities of practice. Their narratives include the silenced voices, they speak for the marginalized, they raise voice to bring such policy reforms that provide equal opportunity and social justice. Yet they are completely ignored and they remain excluded from the main policy planning processes and power corridors. While the people in the green zone, speak out and loudly enough to impose their will in public policy. They are heard as they say what the powerful regimes want them to say or they have common interests. It all depends upon how close or distant the communication is between the federal, provincial, and regional level. Federal leadership is surely in the green zone and so are the federal institutions along with the donor agencies. The situation in Punjab and Sindh seems much better than in other regions. Federal ministry and Provincial departments included people of their choice to the policy dialogues. If one or two critical thinkers are invited in the initial meetings they are no more there in the further process, because critical questions offend the authorities.

Such power relations were keeping the institutions and individuals in a dilemma. Even the institutional heads express this feeling that they have no say. The practitioners – teachers in case of education keep looking at themselves as the followers of whatever is ordered by the authorities. Not having any voice even in the curriculum planning was one big example of being powerless. The universities, colleges and schools are all working under a power structure. Sometimes I felt that it was not only the pressures and power relations rather it was also about the communication gap among individuals, institutions and authorities. ?Then I realized that the communication is mostly one way and order is order!