Why Isn’t Power Balancing?: A case study of coloniality, power, and inclusion in Kenya’s national basic education curriculum reform

Alyssa Schmirler

12110892

Word Count: 29,585

Supervisor: Dr. Courtney Vegelin

Why Isn’t Power Balancing?:

A case study of coloniality, power, and inclusion in Kenya’s

national basic education curriculum reform

University of Amsterdam

International Development Studies

i.

Abstract

Stakeholder inclusion has become a normalized practice in the field of development. While this practice is intended to empower ‘local’ stakeholders, the literature suggests asymmetric power relations persist. However, more research is needed to understand how power and inclusion are interconnected through the theoretical perspective of ‘formerly’ colonized peoples. This qualitative study sought to understand how differential stakeholder inclusion in Kenya’s national basic education curriculum reform process reflects power relations from a decolonial perspective. It also examined the implications of the interaction of power and inclusion for curriculum formulation, function, and implementation. Document analyses, group discussions, and individual discussions with teachers, ministry officials, curriculum developers, and other relevant stakeholders revealed asymmetric power relations between development partners, education institutions, teachers’ unions, and teachers. These power relations were reflected in stakeholder inclusion in the planning, policymaking, curriculum development, and training stages of the reform process. The outcome of these power relations was the production of a curriculum that centers Euro-North-American-centric knowledge, favors education for economic development over human development, and a curriculum design that is not well suited for the Kenyan context. In conclusion, stakeholder inclusion and the curriculum outcome reflected deeply embedded and embodied colonial power relations. Furthermore, this study demonstrated the intertwined nature of development and coloniality. This highlights a need for development partners to reflect on their influence and power, and a need to reconfigure the field of development.

Keywords: power, inclusion, coloniality, international development, curriculum reform, decolonization, Kenya

This study complies with the University of Amsterdam Graduate School of Social

Science´s ethical guidelines for student research. The guidelines are intended to

ensure academic integrity through honesty, transparency, responsibility,

independence, and caution of the researcher. The research presented is my own

work and credit has been given to published works. The primary data has been

shared with my supervisor. There were no known conflicts of interest connected

to this study.

i.i. Acknowledgements

I would like to acknowledge a number of people who have inspired, supported, encouraged and guided me during the creation of this thesis. I would like to express my gratitude to the teachers, education practitioners, and other respondents who were willing to share their experiences with me. This thesis would not be possible without their contributions. I am deeply grateful for my gatekeeper who helped me get started as I began fieldwork and who treated me like family during my time in Kenya. I would like to thank all the other people who helped me along the way by sharing contacts and organizing meetings. I appreciate the people who I have met during my internship in Kenya, and the friends I made along the way. I am grateful for my supervisor Josh Maiyo who guided, advised, and mentored me during the fieldwork period. His guidance and feedback helped me through difficult times during

fieldwork. I have a deep appreciation towards Lucy who opened up her home to me during my stay in Kenya. She made me feel at home with her friendship, stories, love of music, and kindness. Thank you for making me feel like part of the family!

I would like to extend my gratitude to my wonderful classmates who encouraged me over these past two years. Our discussions helped me through my doubts and inspired many of the themes in this thesis. I am sincerely grateful for my supervisor Dr. Courtney Vegelin for her excellent supervision, feedback, encouragement and support, especially during the writing of this thesis. I enjoyed our meetings and her mentorship which guided and strengthened my writing. I would also like to express my appreciation to Dr. Mieke Lopes Cardozo for being my second reader and also supporting me in the early phases of the research proposal process. Finally, I would like to thank my family who have supported me throughout my journeys in life.

i.i.i. Table of Contents

ii. Acknowledgements iii. Table of Contents iv. List of Figures v. List of Tables vi. List of Acronyms Chapter 1: Introduction

1.1 Introduction: Research Relevance and Rationale 1.2 Criticisms of Stakeholder Inclusion

1.2.1 Practice-Oriented Critiques 1.2.2 Uncontextualized Critiques 1.2.3 Contextualized Critiques 1.3 Problem and Research Questions 1.4 Thesis layout

Chapter 2: Theoretical Framework 2.1 Introduction

2.2 Decolonial Theory

2.2.1 Colonization and Coloniality 2.2.2 Modernity and Development 2.2.3 Decolonization and Decoloniality 2.2.4 Colonial Matrix of Power

2.3 African Philosophies of Education 2.3.1 (De)Coloniality of Education

2.3.2 Curricula Functions and Formulation 2.4 Conceptualization and Operationalization 2.5 Conclusion

Chapter 3: Research Framework

3.1 Ontological and Epistemological Paradigm 3.2 Methodology 3.2.1 Research Location 3.2.2 Sampling Methods 3.2.3 Research Methods 3.2.4 Data Analysis 3. 3 Reflections 3.3.1 Quality Criteria

3.3.2 Methodological Reflections and Limitations 3.3.3 Ethical Reflections and Researcher Positionality Chapter 4: Research Context: Kenya

4.1 Overview of Education in Kenya

4.1.1 Indigenous Kenyan Education Systems 4.1.2 Colonial Education

4.4 Conclusion

Chapter 5: Inclusion and Power Analysis 5.1 Inclusion in the Curriculum Reform

5.1.1 Task Force 5.1.2 Needs Assessment 5.1.3 Policy 5.1.4 Curriculum Development 5.1.5 Training 5.1.6 Conclusion

5.2 Power Relations Reflected in Inclusion 5.2.1 CMP Fourth Level of Power

5.2.2 Power Relations Within the Government of Kenya 5.2.3 Power Relations Between Levels

5.3 Conclusion

Chapter 6: Curriculum Analysis

6.1 Purpose and Formulation of the Curriculum 6.1.1 CBC Formulation 6.1.2 Functions of Education 6.2 Curriculum Suitability 6.2.1 Curriculum Components 6.2.2 Curriculum Implementation 6.3 Conclusion Chapter 7: Conclusion

7.1 Analysis Conclusion and Discussion 7.1.1 Sub-Questions

7.1.2 Main Research Question

7.2 Implications, Recommendations, and Aspirations 7.2.1 Theoretical Implications

7.2.2 Social Implications

7.2.3 Limitations and Recommendations 7.2.4 Future Aspirations

7.3 Concluding Remarks viii. References

iv. List of Figures

Figure 2: Stakeholders (within the CMP) Figure 3: Conceptual Model

Figure 4: Convergent Research Design Figure 5: Reform Timeline

Figure 6: Revised Conceptual Model

v. List of Tables

Table 1: Definitions of Concepts Table 2: Group Discussion Schedule

vi. List of Acronyms

CIDA - Canadian International Development Agency CBC – Competency-Based Curriculum

CMP - colonial matrix of power CS - Cabinet Secretary

EAC - East African Community

EDPCG - Education Development Partner Coordination Group GoK – Government of Kenya

GPE - Global Education Partnership

IBE-UNESCO - International Bureau of Education-UNESCO ICT – Information and Communications Technology KICD - Kenya Institute of Curriculum Development KIE – Kenya Institute of Education

KNAP - Kenya National Association of Parents KNEC - Kenya National Exam Council

KNUT - Kenya National Union of Teachers KUPPET - Kenya Union of Post Primary Teachers MoE - Ministry of Education

NATO - North Atlantic Treaty Organization NESP - National Education Sector Plan

NESSP - National Education Sector Strategic Plan NGOs – Non-Government Organizations

PCIs - Pertinent and Contemporary Issues

SAGAs - Semi-Autonomous Government Agencies SWAps - Sector-Wide Approaches

TSC - Teachers Service Commission TTC – Teacher Training Colleges UN – United Nations

UNESCO - United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization UNICEF United Nations Children's Fund

USAID - United States Agency for International Development WB - World Bank

Chapter 1: Introduction

1.1 Introduction: Research Relevance and Rationale

It was 1949, the turmoil of World War II still lingering, when U.S. president Truman delivered his inaugural address, shaping the development discourse and deeply ingraining images of the so-called ‘Third World’ into the minds of people across the globe (Koch & Weingart, 2016:10). The very term ‘development’ prescribed certain countries as ‘underdeveloped’ and in need of the skills and knowledge from ‘developed’ nations. And so, the world of development

materialized so that knowledge and capital could be transferred in the form of technical assistance by Euro-North-American ‘experts’ (ibid). Rostow’s Modernization Theory paved the way for development thought and action in the 1970s (Robb, 2004). This theory sought to transform ‘underdeveloped’ countries and build their economies by transplanting foreign models of industrialization. Economic growth was thought to be the key to reducing poverty, as the benefits would ‘trickle down’ to the poor. During this period aid was mainly imposed in the form of top-down projects which were largely inconsiderate of the individual country contexts (ibid).

Modernization Theory soon fell short of its mission to bring development to the ‘Third World.’ This realization set in motion a domino effect of ‘lessons learned’ and development trends, which have ranged from: sponsoring individuals, building infrastructure, providing supplies, implementing programs, budget support, to sector-wide approaches (Archer, 2010; Koch & Weingart, 2016). Each approach has been trailed by criticisms that underscored the seemingly endless list of aid-related issues. One criticism that has been voiced by people on both the giving and receiving ends of aid is in regard to the power imbalances shaping the development world. During the 1980s paradigm shift towards democratization, donors began working with recipient governments, influencing government policy as they bankrolled the programs. Koch and Weingart (2016) argue that development became an avenue for foreign ‘experts’ to set agendas and make decisions while recipients waited in vain for the knowledge of the ‘experts’, deceived by the ‘technocratic illusion’. Nevertheless, failures to reduce poverty and raise living standards were glaring. This is evidenced, for example, in how education failures outweigh successes, resulting in education having “little demonstrable impact on the problems that confront the people” (Bunyi, 2008:17).

Critics called for equality and empowerment of ‘local’ citizens, in response, development practices took on another trend of including the voices of local stakeholders to balance out power dynamics. Researchers advocated for participatory approaches as a means to obtain local knowledge, move away from top-down technocratic methods, and to promote

democratic, empowering and effective development processes (Christens & Speer, 2006). Nevertheless, these approaches which were intended to empower and include stakeholders in their own development soon fell under scrutiny for many reasons and power dynamics remain an issue, yet this approach continues to be widely practiced (Riddell & Niño-Zarazúa, 2016). While power dynamics have been examined extensively within the literature, they have mainly been examined through Euro-North-American-centric perspectives and theories.

within the development context, or it has not sufficiently captured the complexity of power relations, which stem from colonialism. Therefore, there is a gap in understanding power dynamics in stakeholder inclusion from the theoretical perspective of ‘formerly’ colonized peoples. Understanding power relations from this perspective is relevant to the scientific community because it provides insight into the origins and depth of these dynamics.

Addressing this gap is also of social relevance because it exposes how power dynamics persist even when development partners work in the background while local stakeholders are in the foreground. This underscores the need for development partners and policymakers to: reassess their influence and power within the development industry, question whether their presence is (negatively) affecting the desired outcome, and reflect on how to reconfigure their roles. Understanding this gap is particularly important within the education sector given that education plays an important role in the development and transformation of a society and oneself (Bunyi, 2008; Burns, 1965 as cited in Okrah, 2005:17; Sefa Dei, 2008; Hettne, 1990 as cited in Nkomo, 2005:50). Therefore, the dynamics shaping the education sector have serious consequences extending beyond education. A better understanding of the power dynamics shaping participation in the education sector and the impacts this has defining the purpose and functions of education is urgent.

To bring clarity to the current conversation the following section discusses the criticisms of stakeholder inclusion in the literature, and it demonstrates the limitations of these criticisms. This will provide a roadmap for understanding the research questions this study seeks to answer.

1.2 Criticisms of Stakeholder Inclusion

1.2.1 Practice-Oriented Critiques

In response to calls for empowerment, low success of development efforts, and partly inspired by the influential scholar Freire, donors began to realize the need to adapt policies and

approaches to the local context through a process of participation (Christens & Speer, 2006). Chambers’ (1994) Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA) programs have been particularly influential in orienting this development trend. This approach has been referred to in a number of ways; participation, inclusion, stakeholder engagement, or bottom-up processes. While these terms have been widely defined, they broadly describe involvement of a range of local stakeholders in processes of planning, decision-making, and/or implementation of a project. Participation soon gained traction as an ‘undeniably good’ objective in development and it increasingly dominated development practices (Kapoor, 2005). Nevertheless, as the emphasis on stakeholder inclusion rapidly grew, so did its criticisms as this approach has been scrutinized for falling short of its goal to balance power and promote equality (Few et al., 2007).

Few et al. (2007) have identified two main critique categories. Modes of engagement and extent

of participation concern the depth and quality of ‘target population’ engagement, questioning:

Can stakeholders truly share their ideas freely? Is participation even meaningful for them? Does their input have any impact on the outcome? (Sherman & Ford, 2014:432) Conceptual

and practical challenges of public engagement involve who is included and why, it also

highlights how differential access or limited capacity of public forums potentially results in biased self-section and disproportionate influence of certain groups in the decision-making (Few et al., 2007). This category additionally points out that issues of social disincentives, public apathy, time costs, and social dynamics may limit motivations and willingness to participate (Bloomfield et al., 2001; Sanchez et al., 1988, as cited in Few et al., 2007:49). The critiques cited by Few et al. fall into the participation traps highlighted by Hickey and Mohan (2005:241-242): focusing on “the ‘local’ as opposed to wider structures of injustice and oppression”; an unsophisticated “understanding of how power operates and is constituted and thus of how empowerment may occur”; “an inadequate understanding of the role of structure and agency in social change”; and “a tendency for certain agents of participatory development to treat participation as a technical method of project work rather than as a political

methodology of empowerment.” Kapoor (2002:103) similarly argues that participatory approaches are too practice-oriented, lacking theory, and have a “narrow view of power.” Consequently, Few et al.’s critiques focus mainly on why something is not working, and therefore the assumption is that the problems encountered in practice can be addressed through more and better practice, not fundamental questioning” (Kapoor, 2002:102).

Furthermore, these critique categories fail to position development partners within the power relations and narrowly focus on power dynamics between local stakeholders.

1.2.2 Uncontextualized Critiques

Several studies (Cornwall, 2004; Few et al., 2007; Hickey & Mohan, 2005; Neef & Neubert, 2011; Poolman & Van De Giesen, 2006; Sherman & Ford, 2014) recognize power relations between development partners, elites, and/or citizens. Cornwall (2004:82) points out the irony of development agencies’ attempts to create autonomous spaces for participants when “their very presence and agency as instigator may come to affect, rather fundamentally, what these spaces might come to represent to those who participate in them.” Neef and Neubert (2011:187) assert that “[e]ven in cases where formal involvement of local stakeholders is substantial, researchers may still control the research process and be at the center of decision-making.” Cooke and Kothari (2001, as cited in Christens and Speer, 2006) claim that

participation is the new ‘tyranny’ as power is often not dispersed, nor is participation a liberation tool as its rhetoric proposes. They suggest that projects claiming to be participatory actually mask, maintain, and perhaps exacerbate donor as well as local power imbalances, rendering the decision-making in the control of the powerful.

These studies, however, largely ignore the colonial history that has shaped the current environment of most ‘developing’ countries, and therefore they only superficially touch on development practitioners’ power. As a result—with the exception of Cooke and Kothari –they again offer practical changes to address these power dynamics, and the assumption of these changes is that the power dynamics can be changed if we take a different approach and, for example, “carefully consider local institutional capacity, community interest, power dynamics, and project logistics when designing the project’s stakeholder engagement strategy” (Sherman & Ford, 2014:433). Consequently, the solutions they offer, therefore, address the symptoms of

1.2.3 Contextualized Critiques

Other studies (Denney et al., 2018; Gaventa, 2004; Groves & Hinton, 2004; Hickey & Mohan, 2005; Koch & Weingart, 2016; Mohan & Stokke, 2000) have explicitly recognized how colonialism has shaped current power dynamics. Denney et al. (2018:881) explain that many challenges persist despite stakeholder inclusion “due to an overall structure that creates a power imbalance favoring the agendas of donor states and of business-as-usual neo-liberal economic ideas.” They explain that “these expressions of colonial power remain, configuring current relations of development.” They also recognize that “[i]deological power is rooted in hegemonic influence over an individual’s thinking and desires” (ibid:882). However, their solutions are for development partners to "critically examine their own research methods and tools to make them more appropriate to specific historical and political contexts." They also suggest to “structure their interactions in a way that local participants do not feel threatened that questioning or criticizing the agenda or the past performance of projects might

compromise future funding or technical assistance” (ibid:889). While reflection is crucial, it is questionable if reflection on methods, tools, and interactions alone would be enough to

equalize the power dynamics given how embedded these relations are. Furthermore, they rely on Euro-North-American models written from the ‘former’ colonizer’s point of view to explain these power relations, and therefore they do not capture the many dimensions and

manifestations of colonialism.

Kapoor (2005) applies post-colonialism to his analysis of power relations in development, and in doing so he argues that development practitioners need to examine themselves, their

subjectivity, and the power and control they have while setting the agenda. He argues that only by turning inwards can we understand the ideological mechanisms attached to development participation. One of Kapoor’s (ibid:1216) recommendations is “politicising and publicising the prejudices and prerogatives of the facilitator” to “de-centre and democratise power

relationships”, as well as subjecting not only the content of participatory development, but the rules and procedures to public deliberation. Kapoor’s (ibid) analysis and recommendations go deeper than the practicalities of participation, he applies post-development theory to better understand how power operates and he acknowledges the wider oppressive structures. Nevertheless, although he applies a post-colonial lens for understanding the context, his analysis is largely built on Euro-North-American perspectives. Consequently, his analysis does not extend far enough to capture the embeddedness and embodiment of colonial power, and it does not question development as an oppressive institution in itself.

1.3 Problem and Research Questions

This chapter has presented a brief overview of the critiques of participatory development. The literature review has revealed that power imbalances between donors, aid receiving

governments, and their citizens persist despite attempts to include stakeholders throughout the process. This chapter has demonstrated how the disconnect between participatory approaches and stakeholders’ lives, lack of a theoretical base, heavy focus on practical application, and unresolved power conflicts shed doubt on the empowering impact of participation. Thus, decades of stakeholder participation have yielded little success, yet

participation remains a common development practice. As development trends change over time in response to the lack of ‘development’ the assumption is that the fault of the failure is in the technical practices, rather than an inherent issue of the nature of development.

As the literature becomes saturated with critiques of stakeholder inclusion practices, there remains a gap in understanding how deeply ingrained coloniality is in current power relations, and how it is embodied by various stakeholders. The problem this poses is that the root causes of power imbalances have yet to be addressed, and the depth of the implications of these dynamics for outcomes of development initiatives is overlooked. As these problems persist, the cycle of new participation approaches continues to circulate with little accountability and change within development agencies. This is evidenced by World Bank’s recent stakeholder engagement plans for: higher education (Teixeira, 2019); girls’ empowerment and quality education for all project (Oliveira, 2020); and safe schooling and distance education (Reyes, 2020). Additionally, GPE (2020) recently released stakeholder guidelines for the monitoring of national education budgets.

In this context, the current study is particularly interested in understanding how power dynamics highlighted above relate to education in development. More specifically, it looks at how power dynamics inform inclusion in education reform, and how this then impacts curriculum development. To better understand these issues, the national basic education curriculum reform in Kenya was examined as a case study. This large-scale project has called on all education stakeholders in Kenya to be included in the process, rendering it suitable for studying the interplay and product of power and inclusion among multiple stakeholders. I have set out to understand this problem by asking the following questions (see figure 1):

1.4 Thesis layout

This introductory chapter has provided an overview of the available literature concerning participatory development approaches, and the gaps and problems that exist. This chapter has also presented the main research question and sub-questions to address this gap. The

succeeding chapter will outline the theoretical framework that will guide the formulation of the main concepts and interpretation of data. As the research question suggests, I will engage with decolonial theory to examine power relations, I then turn to African philosophies of education to guide the interpretations of the formulation and implementation of the curriculum. The following chapter will present the research framework. The ontological position will provide the basis for how this study understands and researches reality as it examines the social world. The epistemological stance will inform this study’s perspective of knowledge production. The methodology section will explain how the data collection and analyses were carried out, followed by method and ethical reflections. Chapter four will provide an introduction to the research context, Kenya, paying particular attention to the education sector over the course of Kenya’s history. The next two chapters will present the data analysis results and interpretations. The final chapter will open with a discussion on the findings and conclusions of this study. It will also present limitations, contributions,

Chapter 2: Theoretical Framework

2.1 Introduction

The theoretical framework of this study is built on two components: decolonial theory and African philosophies of education. Decolonial theory is used to construct a conceptual understanding of power based on the colonial history that shaped the environment of the research location. Decolonial Theory will aid in answering the first part of the research question concerning stakeholder inclusion in Kenya’s national curriculum reform process. African philosophies of education will guide in answering the subsequent part of the research question regarding the impact of differential inclusion on the formulation and outcome of the curriculum. A brief reflection on the terminology used in this thesis is warranted before beginning this chapter.

Several terms have been used to discuss ‘formerly’ colonized nations (third world, underdeveloped, developing, global south, low income countries) and ‘former’ colonizing nations (first world, developed, global north, the west, high income counties). These terms are geographically inaccurate, misleading, and misrepresentative. The terms ‘formerly’ colonized, ‘former’ colonizers, and Euro-North-America are used in this thesis to reflect the significant impact of colonialism on the geo-political structure of the current world-system (Quijano, 2000). Furthermore, Eurocentric, Western, and Westernized have been used to describe globally imposed hegemonic worldviews, knowledge systems, and ideologies (Ouma, 2012). The term Euro-North-American-centric is used in this thesis to reflect that this worldview is mainly held and imposed by Western European and North American countries.

Furthermore, this study recognizes that Africa is a diverse continent, home to diverse groups of people, cultures, ethnicities, races, religions, ideologies and ways of life (Letseka, 2000; Kunnie, 2000). Therefore, the terms African philosophies and Africans are used in this thesis to reflect the common experiences that unite Africa’s people both in their colonial struggles and worldview continuities, rather than to homogenize Africa or mute the pluralism of African societies and identities. Finally, the terms indigenous and tradition(al) refer to “multifaceted bodies of knowledge, practices, and representations” that are maintained, developed, and part of the lived experiences of people with a long history in a particular environment (Sefa Dei, 2008:240; Owuor, 2007). Therefore, Indigenous knowledge, as used in this paper, is not static nor fixed ancient practices of a ‘frozen past’, it is comprised of practices, institutions, and traditions from the past that are communicated in, are relevant to, and shape the present (Bunyi, 2008; Sefa Dei, 2008).

2.2 Decolonial Theory

2.2.1 Colonization and Coloniality

To understand decoloniality and how it is applied to this study it is essential to first unpack colonization and coloniality as it is viewed from the decolonial perspective. Colonization

over their colonies (Ndlovu-Gatsheni, 2013). Colonization both systematically repressed beliefs, knowledge, ideas, images, and symbols found to be useless or threatening for the colonizers, and appropriated what was deemed of use (Quijano, 2007). A few of the colonized were selectively taught the colonizers’ knowledge, but they were not able to fully be part of the colonizers’ world (Vilakazi, 2000:197). Formal colonization was almost fully eradicated following the second world war, but from the decolonial point of view the legacy of

colonization lived on through coloniality (Ndlovu-Gatsheni, 2013; Quijano, 2007). Coloniality is an embedded logic reinforcing domination and exploitation, it is experienced and imposed through lasting power relations formed during colonization (Mignolo, 2018a:106; Ndlovu-Gatsheni, 2015). Maldonado-Torres (2007:243) adds that coloniality defines relations, culture, and knowledge, and it is “maintained alive in books, in the criteria for academic performance, in cultural patterns, in common sense, in the self-image of peoples, in aspirations of self [etc.].” Three interrelated concepts of coloniality, derived from decolonial thought, help to understand the invisible structures of coloniality: coloniality of power, knowledge, and being. These concepts are founded in fictitious ‘biological’ constructions of race which were

constructed by colonizers based on physical features or ‘physiognomic traits’ (Quijano, 2007:171). Race was then used as a social classification key to prescribe one’s degree of humanity, rank the world, divide labor, and distribute power (Quijano, 2000; Maldonado-Torres, 2007). Quijano (ibid) posits that superiority and inferiority claims were also made by manipulating time and history so that modernity and rationality belonged to the colonizers, and the ‘ahistorical’ past was that of the colonized. Dualities were imposed based on ‘natural’ differences which created the colonial difference between the colonizer and colonized:

“primitive-civilized, magic/mythic-scientific, irrational-rational, traditional-modern”, (ibid:542). This colonial worldview survives through coloniality of power as it (re)produces and reinforces these racial claims of superiority and inferiority as (false) truths.

Consequently, coloniality has engulfed the mind in acts of epistemic injustices, or coloniality of

knowledge. According to decolonial thought, coloniality of knowledge has disrupted, distorted,

and demolished ways of knowing, knowledge production, and imagining that lay outside of the Euro-North-American worldview (Escobar, 2007 as cited in Ndlovu-Gatsheni, 2013:8). Those forced under colonial control were made to ‘delink’ from their ways of knowing and link-up with the mythical ‘universal’ worldview of the white, male, Christian, heterosexual,

European/North American colonizer (Grosfoguel, 2007). Oppressive power relations and worldview distortions had a profound effect on one’s lived experience and sense of being (Maldonado-Torres, 2007). Coloniality of being has distorted notions of what it means to exist as a human being, creating a damaging identity crisis (Vilakazi, 2000). Maldonado-Torres (2007:256) borrows from Fanon’s description of the damne´s (condemned), as neither being nor not being, to explain the invisibility and dehumanization of people of color, reflecting the unethical nature of coloniality that is naturalized through conceptions of race.

Furthermore, another product of colonization that is fueled by and simultaneously maintains coloniality is capitalism and the capitalist world-system. Large-scale exploitation of land, labor, means of production, and capital gave way to the global capitalist economy (Mignolo, 2007). Therefore, according to decolonial thought, capitalism was born out of colonial power and exploitation, and colonial power and exploitation determined who benefited from capitalism

(Quijano, 2000). Capitalism, therefore, concerns more than the economy, it is a world-system entangled in the colonial matrix of power (Grosfoguel, 2007). Having control over the world-system, Euro-North-America set out on a mission to dominate the globe and incorporate all regions into the system as it imposed hierarchies and forced knowledge and knowledge production under its hegemonic control (Quijano, 2000). Against this backdrop, modernity, and later development, promised liberation for the exploited.

2.2.2 Modernity and Development

Maldonado-Torres (2007) argues that modernity is the offspring of coloniality, it would not exist without coloniality, while at the same time coloniality depends on modernity for its survival. From the decolonial perspective, modernity is a set of ‘self-serving narratives’ and coloniality is hidden in the language of progress that fuels the imposed ‘civilizing mission’ of modernity (Mignolo, 2018b; Ndlovu-Gatsheni, 2015). The myth of modernity sees Euro-North-America as the “culmination of a civilizing trajectory”, thus the colonizers declared themselves modern and the “most advanced of the species” (Quijano, 2000:542)i. Mignolo (2007) explains that the civilizing mission of modernity was used to justify the colonization of those lacking rationality and progress, and so modernity was made to look like a natural, global process. Civilizing the ‘primitive barbarians’ by exporting religion, ‘universal’ knowledge, and economic development was the ‘moral burden’ of the ‘modern civilization’ (Dussel, 2000). Violence towards those who opposed this mission was also justified as an inevitable sacrifice for the sake of modernity (Ndlovu-Gatsheni, 2013; Serequeberhan, 2012). The victims of modernity were forced to sacrifice their ways of life and adopt the ‘prerequisites of modernity’ in order to assimilate into the world-system (Lumumba-Kasongo, 2000:152).

Mignolo (2007; 2018a), asserts that the ‘rhetoric of modernity’ was reinvented through

development; ‘modernization’ replaced the civilizing mission and ‘development’ replaced

progress. The world was once again divided, as developed and underdeveloped. Images of poverty, hunger, disease, misery, starvation, and ignorance represent development’s ‘targets’ as powerless and incapable of caring for themselves and in need of saving (Escobar, 1995a; Escobar, 1995b; Ouma, 2012:125). From the decolonial perspective, development cures are prescribed based on what ‘experts’ deem necessary, regardless of what the ‘ailing’ nation desires, and the possibility of the ‘ailing’ nation healing itself is not an option (Ouma, 2012). Decolonialists posit that the development regime does not care about individual histories and traditions, it is a straitjacket approach that seeks to fit societies into ‘prepacked’ models, reducing a person’s existence into statistical figures, abstract concepts, and tagging them with neat—yet loaded—labels based on a single trait or feature (Escobar, 1995b:52; Escobar, 1995c; lIlich, 1997). Escobar (1995b:52) finds that asymmetric colonial power relations are maintained as development practitioners dictate the rules of the game meaning, “who can speak, from what points of view, with what authority, and according to what criteria.”

2.2.3 Decolonization and Decoloniality

As colonies gained political independence from colonial administration they set out on a path to decolonize. This process has been recounted by some as a moment of national pride, a

examination reveals while political emancipation was achieved, the process of liberation from coloniality was never completed, a false mirage of liberation was projected, concealing the links between the present hierarchies and the colonial past (ibid; Mignolo, 2007). Grosfoguel (2006:219) asserts that “[o]ne of the most powerful myths of the twentieth century was the notion that the elimination of colonial administrations amounted to the decolonization of the world”, he points out that 450 years of colonial foundation “did not evaporate with the juridical-political decolonization.” Serequeberhan (2012:146) remarks that although the land has been reclaimed, “[we] have failed to reclaim ourselves and take control of our own historical existence.” From the decolonial perspective, the lie that decolonization is no longer needed obstructs the necessity of questioning the “ontological and epistemic essence of colonial modernity”, thus contributing to “the invisibility of ‘coloniality’” (Ndlovu-Gatsheni, 2013:95; Grosfoguel, 2007:220).

If decolonization is an unfinished project masking colonial processes, decoloniality is the unveiling of these processes and a delinking from hegemonic epistemic logic and ontological assumptions (Mignolo, 2018a; 2018b). Decoloniality ‘delinks’ by confronting repressive knowledge assumptions and by examining the formation of the coloniality of power, because by knowing the past one knows “from what and how to delink”, which enables a relink to another epistemology for ‘re-existence’ (Mignolo, 2018a:115). This ‘epistemic shift’ seeks to challenge imposed dominant worldviews by replacing ‘universal’ knowledge with ‘pluriversal’ knowledge (Mignolo, 2007:453). Therefore, finishing the process of decolonization will require dialogue and exchange of multiple epistemologies or ways of knowing by validating and centering worldviews of ‘formerly’ colonized peoples (Maldonado-Torres, 2007).

2.2.4 Colonial Matrix of Power

The colonial matrix of power (CMP) is a theoretical concept used by decolonial theorists to expose the invisible nature of coloniality (Mignolo, 2018b). The CMP is “a complex structure of management and control composed of domains, levels, and flows” (ibid:142). The CMP, in its original conception, is made up of four domains which control all dimensions of social life: knowledge and subjectivity; authority; the economy and capitalism; and gender and sexuality (Mignolo, 2011; Quijano 2000). The seemingly isolated domains are intertwined and

structured by the flows emerging from the colonial terms of conversation (Mignolo, 2018b). The domains operate as the content of the conversation controlling social life and are authorized by actors who exert different levels of control and management within a domain using the language of modernity (Mignolo, 2018b). The actors are epistemically trained to comply with, maintain, and reproduce the colonial terms and content through a process of ‘internal colonialism’ (Mignolo, 2011). It is therefore essential to change the terms of the conversation, not just the content, in order to dismantle the oppressive CMP (ibid).

How domains, levels, or flows look in one region may not reflect those in another; therefore, I now turn to perspectives on the CMP in countries on the African continent (Mignolo, 2018b). According to Memmi, (1991 as cited in Abdi & Cleghhorn, 2005a:33) and Shizha (2005), a consequence of colonial education, which functioned to colonize minds, is that it turned out colonized Africans who collaborated with colonizers on the “overall project of their

Decolonialists argue that colonizers were replaced (and the CMP maintained) by African politicians and their successors, who are products of colonial schools and likely suffer the most from mental colonialism (Ndlovu-Gatsheni, 2015; 2013; N’Dione et al., 1997). Rahnema (1997) opined that leaders are lured into the CMP by the power it resembles and the development it promises, they are convinced that without guidance to ‘catch up’ they are damned to be ‘underdeveloped'. Therefore, even though the faces of those managing the state have changed, it retained its colonial character as the ‘native bourgeoisie’ uncritically embraced Euro-North-American languages and culture (Ndlovu-Gatsheni, 2013).

Nevertheless, Ndlovu-Gatsheni (2013:75) questions if African leaders ever had the autonomy to “pursue an independent political, ideological and economic path without provoking reaction from the ex-colonial powers?” He explains that the leaders’ decisions, including efforts towards true decolonization and liberation, were controlled by the CMP. Leaders were forced to tread carefully even if it meant “choosing to suppress African people’s aspirations and demands” lest they be deemed traitors and enemies of the state or risk being viewed as

unintelligible (ibid:76; Odora Hoppers, 2000). African leaders maintain their power as long as they stick to the script provided by their former colonizers (Freire, 2000:45; Muiu, 2003). Odora Hoppers (2000) argues that this prolongs the wounds of colonialism, as “the subjugated groups will forever continue to accept supinely the conceptualization of their own condition’ which is bestowed upon them by the ‘former’ colonizers.

By retaining the colonial institutions following independence, states came to represent the “mistrust, fear, and hate that the majority of the people felt toward the colonial state” (Muiu, 2003:1318). Ndlovu-Gatsheni (ibid) further argues that the inherited colonial state was not well embedded, resulting in unstable citizen-state relations. The citizen-state disconnect was amplified as citizens continued to be marginalized and their interests, priorities, and needs were ignored. They were made false promises of the ‘rhetoric of modernity’ and are told their hard work will pay off, but they have yet to reap the benefits (Ndlovu-Gatsheni, 2013).

Consequently, tensions grew between the state and citizens, as is evident in countries like Kenya and Zimbabwe which have found it difficult to remove elites from power without the use of force (ibid). Nevertheless, citizens have resisted and fought the imposed colonial state (ibid). However, by stripping Africa of its knowledge and history, and replacing it with oppressive and exploitative hegemonic paradigms, coloniality has made it difficult for the citizens of Africa to exercise their “agency to take control of their destinies” and produce the tools needed to liberate Africa (ibid:38; Lumumba-Kasongo 2000).

In conclusion, we are all situated within the CMP, and while Euro-North-America largely controls the CMP, it doesn’t have total control. This chapter demonstrated how three levels of management and control have emerged within the CMP. The ‘former’ colonizers, such as donors and development partners, who are projected as the possessors of knowledge and modernity (Muiu, 2003). They are able to maintain their grip in decision and policy-making as they retain their status as ‘experts.’ The ‘formerly’ colonized elites, including the state and state institutions, who subscribe to hegemonic worldviews and development ideologies. They exert some control, however, their control is confined by the rules, terms, and conditions set forth by Euro-North-America (Mignolo, 2011; Muiu, 2003). And thirdly, the ‘formerly’ colonized

CMP. While this group is neither completely powerless nor passive, because of their particular

position in the asymmetric CMP they have historically been marginalized and excluded from decision-making.

2.3 African Philosophies of Education

2.3.1 (De)Coloniality of Education

The CMP is nourished and maintained, in part, through the coloniality of education. From an African viewpoint, formal colonial education “had a mandate to disconnect Africa from its past and to reconnect it to the new Western value system” to meet the colonial administrative needs (Lumumba-Kasongo, 2000:143; Shizha 2005). Wane (2005) additionally claims that colonial curricula were engineered for oppression as they were oriented towards agricultural, vocational, and religious education rather than career-oriented academics, and they contained virtues, values and beliefs that benefitted the colonizers. Following emancipation from

administrative colonization, many African countries kept their inherited colonial education systems (Shizha, 2005; Wane, 2005). Efforts have been made to restructure or reform the ‘imported curricula’ by revising geography and history syllabi to localize content and teach with an African perspective (Seepe, 2000:119; Bunyi, 2013). However, the superficial

replacement of history and geography content without a change in the epistemological terms of education has had little impact as the curriculum maintains its colonial roots (Bunyi, 2013). Nevertheless, Halagao (2010) suggests that just as education has been used to mis-educate and colonize, it can also be utilized to liberate through a process of decolonization. De Lissovoy (2010) posits that the decolonization of curricula must begin with the epistemic principles that drive and legitimize the curriculum content. Tejeda et al. (2003) explain that there is no one specific decolonial curriculum; curricula should be determined by the past, present, and future of a specific context. Seepe (2000) highlights the importance of centering African worldviews to decolonize and restore education in Africa. Seepe (ibid:119) therefore suggests, finding “African solutions to address African problems.” Furthermore, Shizha (2005:73) and Odora-Hoppers (2002:57) believe the deconstruction of colonial knowledge systems and

reconstruction of Africanized school curricula that are culturally sensitive, reclaim history, and are responsive to the aspirations and needs of various African realities can be “a tool of

liberation” and lead to “recovery of national pride.”

2.3.2 Curricula Functions and Formulation

Reconfiguring curricula is a complex process, as noted by Abdi and Cleghorn (2005b:7), “[w]hile the curriculum first may seem like a straightforward matter, we see that it too is complex when we ask whose knowledge is taught in school, who decided what is to be taught at what level, to whom?” Ela (1998 as cited in Lumumba-Kasongo, 2000:141) insists that when developing curricula questions should be asked concerning, “what kind of formal education, for whom, and to produce what kind of society?” Some African scholars (Kunnie, 2000; Lumumba-Kasongo, 2000; Nkomo, 2000; Seepe, 2000) have suggested grounding and orienting curricula in indigenous philosophies as a way to reclaim African knowledge and

practices in order to heal and be liberated from the damage caused by coloniality. Examining history through a decolonial lens, scholars such as Abdi (2005) have asserted that while indigenous African epistemologies and knowledge systems may have looked different than those in Euro-North-America, they were well established before the colonial invasion and in many ways were much better suited for Africa. Indigenous African education was “intimately intertwined with social life and its curriculum was closely related to the social context” in which one lived, therefore, it was “situationally responsive to the historical, cultural, and environmental needs of the African people” (Abagi, 2005:299; Abdi, 2005:27). Consequently, African scholars such as Sefa Dei (2008: 245) and Jegede (1994 as cited in Sefa Dei, ibid:238) argue that education should be “anchored in cultural experience” where connections are made between what is taught and real-life experiences rather than “rote memorization and

regurgitation.” Furthermore, Letseka (2000) proposes approaching education pragmatically and experientially so that learners may acquire knowledge by regularly engaging with community members who teach by example.

Communalism, Ubuntu, and Education

The literature presents two themes that are central to traditional African ways of life which are useful for understanding key principles of African philosophies of education; communalism and ubuntu. Letseka (2000:191) describes communalism as belongingness to a community, while ubuntu, or humanness through others, centers human needs and interests. These concepts highlight the connectedness of people with their community and other humans, which can be summed up with the isiXhosa proverb, translated by Goduka (2000:71) as, “I am because we are — we are because I am”, signifying the unity and collectivity of humanity. Kenyatta (1965:309) expressed it as, “nobody is an isolated individual. Or rather, his [sic] uniqueness is a secondary fact about him; first and foremost he is several people’s relative and several people’s contemporary.” Goduka (2000) points out how these philosophies of

humanity contrast sharply with Descartes’ Euro-North-American-centric philosophy, 'I think, therefore, I am', which views humanity as an individual experience, focusing on the individual self. Kenyatta (ibid:122) summed up the differences by saying “to the Europeans Individuality is the ideal of life, to the Africans the ideal is the right relations with, and behaviour to, other people.”

Human needs and well-being are therefore central to the philosophy of ubuntu. This translates to placing humanness or human development at the center of education, rather than education for human capital and economic development or purely knowledge acquisition (Kenyatta, 1965; Sefa Dei, 2008). In agreement, Power (1997 as cited in Odora Hoppers, 2000:6) rejects the commodification of knowledge, opining that minds and knowledge “are not just human resources to be developed, exploited, and then cast aside, but treasures to be cultivated to improve the quality of life of both individuals and societies”, therefore education should function as an outlet for personal and societal growth. Furthermore, Vilakazi (2000:207) opines that narrowly defining education for skills development, as has been done in the past, has crippled individuals who only develop specific skills for production activity while

neglecting other talents or their whole self. She therefore contests the framing of education for economic development, explaining that education should also function to develop and enrich

Curricula Developers

Functions of education are influenced by who is setting the agenda and who is included in the formulation of the system, therefore, who is formulating a curriculum is just as important as

how it is formulated (Abdi & Cleghorn, 2005b). While the education system has historically

been in the hands of the state, it was Nyerere’s (1977 as cited in Mayo, 2012:46) belief that “everyone must be allowed to speak freely, and everyone must be listened to. It does not

matter how unpopular a man’s ideas, or how mistaken the majority think him.” Kunnie (2000) proposes that the curricula decolonization process should be rooted in and start with

indigenous rural peoples, while also balancing the discussion with urban peoples. Higgs (2012) suggests that elders and other authorities of the community are important informants with indigenous knowledge and critical perspectives on education and should therefore be included in creating curricula.

Nevertheless, there has been opposition towards centering indigenous knowledge by elites who may see indigenous knowledge as having little or no value in “the process of educational transformation” (Kunnie, 2000:158; Owuor, 2007). Owuor (ibid:25) opines that “[t]he formal western oriented education system inherited after independence not only cultivated among the elites a sense of denial to their indigenous heritage but also impacted individuals’ sense of self-confidence in expressing and appreciating their native values and cultures.” These individuals, Shizha (2005) opines, have resisted attempts to Africanize curricula because they believed it lowers the standards of education. Consequently, indigenous knowledge of community elders, which may be “based on intuition and experiences of life have been devalued as lacking [scientific value]” (Owuor, 2007:28). Therefore, indigenous knowledge has yet to be recognized and validated in curricula development (ibid).

Synthesis of Worldviews

While this chapter has highlighted the value of incorporating indigenous knowledge into curricula, scholars warn that this incorporation should not be a romanticized “nostalgia, yearning for an innocence which is eternally lost”, it should be done so keeping in mind that knowledge systems and cultures are not static, they evolve over time, adapting to societal changes (Mazrui, 1980 as cited in Goduka, 2000:80). Furthermore, Mwadime (1999 as cited in Mkosi, 2005:89) warned that “it would be a folly and unwise to present indigenous knowledge as devoid of any shortcomings”, as it is not necessarily functional nor always correct. It should therefore be modified to function effectively in contemporary African countries. Wiredu (1996 cited in Higgs, 2012:46) also pointed out that traditional knowledge systems cannot necessarily cope with modern problems, better balance would involve combining and synthesizing

effective elements of the intertwined indigenous and Western knowledge systems (Abdi, 2005; Goduka, 2000; Shizha, 2005). Vilakazi (2000:199) adds that Africa should not close off outside influences and be guided solely by Africa’s past, stating that “(n)o civilization has ever

developed and prospered in isolation. In isolation, civilization atrophies.” Rather than

replacing one worldview for another, the objective is to center African worldviews, while also synthesizing and supplementing with other worldviews where appropriate.

2.4 Conceptualization and Operationalization

There are several concepts built into the theoretical framework that will be used throughout this thesis. Table 1 below provides working definitions for these concepts as I have constructed them for this thesis. This table also outlines the basic operationalization of these concepts. See appendix 1 for the complete operationalization table. See figure 2 below for a visual

representation of the relevant stakeholders in the education sector and their position within the CMP according to this study.

Figure 2: Stakeholders (within the CMP)

The conceptual model (figure 3) visually represents the relationships between these concepts. It shows that the ‘former’ colonizers, ‘formerly’ colonized elites, and ‘’formerly’ colonized

citizens are all situated within the CMP. The model shows the tensions that form as these

groups interact with each other. The culmination of these power relations informs stakeholder inclusion throughout the reform process (planning, policy-making, curriculum development, and training). The typologies of inclusion used in this study are based on Pimbert and Pretty’s (1996, as cited in Few et al., 2007:49) typology of inclusion which includes: passive

participation—stakeholders are merely recipients of information and premade decisions; consultative mechanisms—opinions on predetermined decisions can be conveyed; interactive processes—stakeholders are included in problem analyses and have a degree of control in

decision-making; and self-mobilization—independent initiatives are taken outside of external agencies. The model next shows how the interaction of power and inclusion informs the curriculum formulation. The curriculum suitability is then determined by the interplay of the curriculum formulation and implementation. The outcome of the curriculum suitability is shown to either feed back into the CMP or begin a new trajectory of decolonization and liberation from the CMP.

Figure 3: Conceptual Model

2.5 Conclusion

This chapter set out to build the theoretical framework which will provide structure for this study’s methodology, analyses, and interpretations. Drawing on decolonial theory, this chapter has shown how coloniality/modernity/development have shaped the current environments in which we live today. The literature has revealed three main levels of power in ‘formerly’ colonized countries, particularly on the African continent, that have emerged out of the CMP. This study seeks to examine if power relations formed through the CMP are reflected in stakeholder inclusion in the case of the curriculum reform process in Kenya, and the subsequent consequences these relations have on the curriculum that is produced. African philosophies of education will aid in examining the curriculum outcome. These philosophies revealed the necessity of epistemic change and centering African worldviews in curricula development, while also synthesizing worldviews. The philosophy of ubuntu and

communalism suggest framing the purpose of education for human development and

connecting education to lived experiences in the community. These philosophies also showed a need to redistribute power in the curriculum formulation process in order to achieve these changes. This study will examine what knowledge sources are informing Kenya’s curriculum reform, how the purpose of education is framed, and the suitability or contextualization of the curriculum.

Chapter 3: Research Framework

3.1 Ontological and Epistemological Paradigm

From the decolonial perspective, ontologies, or conceptions of being, are epistemic creations. Therefore, it is through a given epistemology, or way of knowing, that “entities and relations are conceived, perceived, sensed, and described” (Mignolo, 2018b:135). Consequently, the supposed ‘inferiority’ of colonized peoples is not ontological, meaning they are not inherently inferior (or insert any other colonial description of colonized people), nor would these notions exist if they were not introduced by a specific way of thinking and knowing. Therefore,

hegemonic epistemologies maintained by the coloniality of knowledge inform ontologies through the perpetuation of coloniality of being in both the way that the ‘former’ colonizers may view the formerly colonized, as well as how the formerly colonized may view themselves. Mignolo (2011:203) therefore asserts that “geo- and body-politics of knowing and sensing” are “foundational in decolonial thinking” because “you are where you think, thinking makes you, rather than the other way around.”

The decolonial perspective also argues that there is no ‘universal’ objective knowledge that exists independent of human thought, rather, there is a plurality of knowledges. Thus, it can be assumed that different worldviews have been created over time in response to interactions with environments, such as Euro-North-American worldviews and African-worldviews. This is further supported by Sefa Dei (2008:241-243) who claims, “[a]ll knowledge is accumulated knowledge, based on observing and experiencing the social and natural worlds.” Furthermore, this also means there is “no universal common ground of experiences” and therefore “it is not enough to say that knowledge is situated” or that “experience is the source of knowledge” (Mignolo, 2011:191). Experiences need to be understood in relation to the CMP to outline how knowledge and experience are influenced by coloniality (ibid). This indicates the necessity of understanding experiences of inclusion by situating the curriculum reform process within the

CMP. Finally, to break the colonial cycle of epistemology informing ontology, which then

reproduces epistemology, there is a need to decolonize epistemologies and validate marginalized epistemologies. In the case of this study, this means decolonizing the

epistemologies informing the curriculum by validating and centering African worldviews.

3.2 Methodology

The aim of this study was to gain an understanding of the power dynamics that shaped the process of curriculum reform in Kenya through a qualitative research design that investigated stakeholder inclusion and the outcomes of the reform process. To achieve this goal three research methods were used to gather and triangulate data: group discussions, individual interviews, and document analysis. The convergent research design of this study allowed the three research methods to be carried out at the same time, rather than separately or in phases, allowing for more data to be collected in a limited time period (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2017). The data collection process began with group discussions which provided background

information as well as discussion on the key themes of the study. While these group discussions continued with teachers from different sub-counties of Nairobi, individual

discussions were carried out with multiple stakeholders. Documents were compiled

throughout and following the fieldwork period for document analysis. All of the documents were written in English, and the group and individual discussions were conducted in English. Although English is not the first language of the respondents, they are all conversant with the English language, as it is one of Kenya’s national languages, and therefore no translations were needed for this study.

3.2.1 Research Location

The fieldwork location of this study was Nairobi, the capital of Kenya. According to the Nairobi City Council (n.d.), Nairobi started out as a depot of the 1899 British Uganda Railway, but due to the water supply and elevation it was found to be a suitable residential area for British settlers and Indian laborers. Nairobi grew fast, in 1905 it became the capital of the British colony in Kenya, then in 1950 it was formally recognized as a city with the ‘consent’ of the British King (ibid). Nairobi is now the largest city in Kenya by population, with over 4.3 million residents (Kenya National Bureau of Statistics, 2019a:7). According to Kenya’s National Bureau of Statistics (2019b:44), in 2019 644,279 out of the 10 million primary school children attended school in Nairobi. Moreover, Nairobi county is divided into nine sub-counties, and teachers from four of these sub-counties (Moja, Mbili, Tatu, and Nne) contributed to this study. The sub-counties in this study make up one of Nairobi’s smallest sub-counties (26, 171 students), a medium size sub-county (39,312), the second largest (115,737), and the largest (141,648). These sub-counties are geographically spread out across Nairobi county and represent a range of socio-economic environments according to the teachers in this study. Furthermore, Nairobi was chosen as the research location for ease of accessibility as it houses the education institutions such as the Ministry of Education, Kenya Institute of Curriculum Development, Teachers Service Commission, and Kenya National Union of Teachers.

3.2.2 Sampling Methods

During the time of this study the reform had been rolled out through third grade. Therefore, only primary school teachers (grades 1-8) were included in the sample because they were the most immediately affected by the reform. Moreover, this study only examined public schools, private schools were not studied because the conditions of these schools—different sources of funding, access to resources, and smaller class sizes—differ enough to make public and private schools non-comparable. Furthermore, the sample was restricted to Nairobi county due to limited time and resources. The main research ‘gatekeeper’ was a primary school teacher working at a public school in Moja sub-county. She arranged two group discussions and six individual discussions with her colleagues. The gatekeeper also connected me to a Head Teacher in Mbili sub-county, who then arranged the other two focus groups with teachers from Mbili and Tatu counties. I was introduced to another Head Teacher from Nne sub-county through an informal contact. He arranged interviews with teachers from Mbili and Nne. This convenience sampling method allowed me to reach a large sample of teachers (20) in a short amount of time, however, it resulted in a gender imbalance in my participants (17 women, 3 men). Nevertheless, the content of the discussions between the women and men was consistent, therefore this doesn’t seem to have affected the data gathered.

To gain a deeper understanding of the power dynamics surfacing throughout the reform process it was crucial to include additional stakeholders in the sample. Through contacts made in the field or via social media I was able to meet with people from the education institutions (the Ministry of Education (6) and Kenya Institute of Curriculum Design (2)), a civil society organization (1), a lecturer (1), and a member of parliament (1). I was also able to converse with representatives from the World Bank (2) and UNICEF (1), however two of these

individuals did not give permission to be quoted, and only provided background information and a few suggested documents to analyze, therefore they were removed from the total sample. The total sample size of stakeholders in the education sector in Kenya, which was this study’s units of observation, was 32.

3.2.3 Research Methods

Group Discussions

Group discussions were chosen as a research method to allow teachers to present their opinions while also listening to and reflecting on what their colleagues were saying, which facilitated in-depth knowledge sharing (Ritchie & Lewis, 2003). Four group discussions were completed with primary school teachers, and all the discussions were documented with the use of an audio recorder and note taking. Due to the limited availability of the teachers and

resources, smaller group sizes (4-6 people) and shorter discussion lengths (1 hour) were more suitable for this study. The locations of the group discussions were selected based on the convenience for the teachers as a group. Two group discussions took place in an apartment building that was within walking distance to the teachers’ school. The other two were located at a cafe in the center of Nairobi.iii See table 2 below for focus group schedule.

The first group discussion was oriented towards gathering background information. Teachers were asked semi-structured, open-ended questions about the Kenyan education system and structure, and major institutional changes or policies enacted prior to the reform. See

appendix 2.1 for the group discussion guide. The subsequent group discussions were aimed at understanding the teachers’ perceptions of how teachers were included at various stages in the reform process, and their experiences with implementing the competency-based curriculum (CBC) (see appendix 2.2). The stages specifically referred to during the group discussions were policymaking, curriculum development, training, and implementation. See table 1 below for the group discussion schedule, see appendix 3 for the full discussion schedule.

Table 2: Group Discussion Schedule

Individual Discussions

Individual discussions were carried out to compliment and clarify the information shared during the group discussions concerning stakeholder inclusion, to expand upon individual experiences with the reform implementation, and to capture the education institution members’ perspectives of the purpose of education and the curriculum formulation. These discussions provided a deeper understanding of stakeholder engagement in the reform and allowed for triangulation of information between stakeholders. Twelve teachers from four sub-counties and twelve additional education stakeholders shared their experiences. The discussion questions were again semi-structured and open-ended, which aided in keeping the discussions focused on the research objectives, but also encouraged the respondents to answer freely and in-depth. Furthermore, by keeping the questions open-ended the conversations were able to diverge from the prepared questions, allowing discussion of relevant topics that were not captured in the original questions, thus enriching the data and scope of research. See appendices 2.3-2.7 for individual guides which were tailored for each stakeholder group. As recommended by Ritchie and Lewis (2003), the individual discussions typically lasted one hour, however the length also depended on the availability of the respondents (20 minutes - 1.5 hours). Furthermore, due to time constraints there was only one discussion per person. See table 3 below for the condensed individual discussion schedule, see appendix 3 for the full discussion schedule.

Table 3: Condensed Interview Schedule

Document Analysis

The third research method of this study, document analysis, involved a process of analyzing documents (15) pertaining to the curriculum reform such as policies, frameworks, and reports. The document analysis allowed for triangulation of the information shared during the

discussions. It also provided additional depth and detail concerning how the purpose of education was framed and what knowledge sources were used in the formulation of the curriculum. The literature review for the primary level Needs Assessment report was analyzed by compiling a list of the references cited and identifying the authors’ institution/country affiliation. The same analysis was carried out for all the references in the Basic Education Curriculum Framework. A random sample of pertinent and contemporary issues as well as

community service-learning activities in the Curriculum Designs were examined for the

purposes of analyzing the relevance and contextualization of the curriculum. Additionally, the contents of the curriculum designs, reports and policy documents were analyzed to gather information on stakeholders and curriculum components. See appendix 4 for a complete list of the documents analyzed.

3.2.4 Data Analysis

The convergent design of this study (see figure 4) allowed the three methods of data to be collected simultaneously, the data coded individually, then the three sources of data analyzed and synthesized simultaneously. The data analysis process was guided by abductive reasoning, therefore meaning was produced through a process of conversation between data and theory (Bryman, 2012). During the discussion transcribing process memos were kept and common themes were identified. Based on the research questions, theory, and themes that surfaced while transcribing, a coding scheme was created (see appendix 5). The coding scheme was then used as a sorting tool in the subsequent data coding using ATLAS.ti software. During the coding process, additional themes emerged and were added to the coding scheme. After the initial data coding process, the theoretical framework was restructured to aid the analysis process and additional codes were added to the coding scheme. Following the addition of these