National Policies that Connect ICT-Based Education Reform to Economic and Social Development

An Interdisciplinary Journal on Humans in ICT Environments ISSN: 1795-6889 www.humantechnology.jyu.fi Volume 1 (2), October 2005, 117-156 117 NATIONAL POLICIES THAT CONNECT ICT-BASED EDUCATION REFORM TO ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT Abstract: Information and communication technology (ICT) is a principal driver of economic development and social change, worldwide. In many countries, the need for economic and social development is used to justify investments in educational reform and in educational ICT. Yet the connections between national development goals and ICT-based education reform are often more rhetorical than programmatic. This paper identifies the factors that influence economic growth and shows how they supported economic and social development in three national case studies: Singapore, Finland, and Egypt. It describes a systemic framework of growth factors and types of development that can be used to analyze national policies and connect ICT-based education reform to national economic and social development goals. And it discusses how the coordination of policies within and across ministries can support a nation’s efforts to improve economic and social conditions. The paper highlights special concerns and challenges of developing countries. Keywords: educational information and communication technology (ICT), public policy, education reform, economic development, social development. INTRODUCTION Over the past several decades, the development of new information and communications technologies (ICTs) has resulted in significant changes in the global economy and the way people, companies, and countries interact and do business (Bhagwati, 2004; Sachs, 2005; Soros, 2002; Stiglitz, 2002). The reduced costs of communication and transportation have lowered barriers to the flows between countries of goods, services, capital, knowledge, and, to a lesser extent, people. Increased global trade is associated with significant economic growth. This growth has, in turn, corresponded to an increased standard of living for millions of people across the globe, although the benefits of this growth have not been uniformly distributed across and within countries (Sachs, 2005; World Bank, 2002b). Beyond the increased flow of goods, economists acknowledge that globalization has corresponded to a profound shift in the role that knowledge creation and innovation play in driving productivity and global economic growth (OECD, 1996, 1999; 2004b; Romer, 1993; © 2005 Robert B. Kozma and the Agora Center, University of Jyväskylä URN:NBN:fi:jyu-2005355 Robert B. Kozma Center for Technology in Learning SRI International, USA Kozma 118 Stiglitz, 1999; World Bank, 2003), a phenomenon referred to as the “knowledge economy.” Knowledge—unlike commodities—can be used multiple times and by more than one person without losing value, and it has marginal distribution costs. These facts open the possibility of an economic production factor with compounding rather than diminishing returns. The production, distribution, and use of new knowledge and technological innovations have been major contributors to increased productivity, the upgrade of physical capital, and the creation of new, high-value-added jobs. Increases in human, institutional, and technological capabilities are, in turn, major sources of new knowledge and innovation which then feed economic growth. From this perspective, technological innovation and new knowledge are both the engine and the product of economic growth. Consequently, investments in research and development and technological innovation can create new knowledge that spawns a virtuous cycle of growth. A third, parallel and related development—sometimes referred to as the “information society” (European Commission, 2000)—is the set of broader social changes resulting from the convergence of computers and communication technologies, their assimilation throughout society and their use for communication, collaboration, and the sharing of knowledge. As ICTs—including laptops wirelessly connected to the Internet, personal digital assistants, lowcost video cameras, and cell phones—become more accessible and embedded in society they offer the potential to restructure organizations, promote collaboration, increase democratic participation of citizens, improve the transparency and responsiveness of governmental agencies, make education and health care more widely available, foster cultural creativity, and enhance the social integration of individuals with different abilities and groups of different cultural backgrounds. National policymakers struggle, on the one hand, to create conditions that support these developments in their countries and, on the other, to craft policies and programs that cope with them and harness their effects to support economic growth and the public good. Education is among the public sectors that most effects—and is most affected by—these developments. The improvement of educational systems and increased educational attainment are seen as primary ways that countries can prepare for these global, technology-based changes (OECD, 1999, 2001a, 2004b; World Bank, 2002b, 2003). And within education, ICT is seen as a way to promote educational change, improve the skills of learners, and prepare them for the global economy and the information society (Haddad & Draxler, 2002; Kozma & Wagner, in press; McNamara, 2003; UNESCO, 2002; Wagner & Kozma, 2005). Consequently, the desire to be globally competitive, grow the economy, and improve social conditions is often used to justify significant public sector investments in educational improvement and the application of ICT in schools. For example, in promoting the use of educational ICT to support the reform program of the current administration, the U.S. National Education Technology Plan (Department of Education, 2004) stated that the country “will face ever increasing competition in the global economy” (p. 6). Correspondingly, the U.S. Government budgeted over US$690 million on educational technology through block grants to its states in 2004. Similarly, Singapore, a country of 4 million people, budgeted over US$1 billion during the 5-year period of its first information technology master plan to install computers, network schools, and train teachers. In announcing its second master plan, the Senior Minister for Trade, Industry, and Education said, “Our most important priority as a nation is to gear up to this future of frequent and unpredictable change, and innovation-driven ICT Policy and Development 119 growth” (Shanmugaratnam, 2002). The economic argument for investment in educational ICT is used even in developing countries. In a policy paper on the topic, Egypt’s ruling National Democratic Party stated, “integrating modern technology into education has astounding positive influence on nations’ educational development, economical progress and global position” (NDP, 2003, p. 3). While the economic rationale is frequently used to justify ICT investments, and the investments in educational ICT have been substantial, national plans have often lacked explicit causal connections between these investments and the desired economic and social impact stated in national goals. This is an important missing link in the structure of ICT-based educational reform policies and programs. ICT-based innovation can and does occur in classrooms without there being a close linkage to national policy (Jones, 2003; Kozma, 2003a). However, without explicating the relationship between ICT-based education reform and the desired social and economic outcomes and building these outcomes into policies and programs, it is less likely that these classroom innovations will add to overall national economic and social efforts and have the ultimate intended effects. The connection between these educational investments and their economic and social returns is a concern for all countries but they are nowhere more important than in developing countries, where the resources are few and both the costs and stakes are high. In this paper, I review the literature in economic development, education reform, and educational technology to identify growth factors that influence and are influenced by economic and social development and ICT-based education reform. I formulate a framework that can be used to analyze these factors, devise policies, and coordinate strategies. Throughout the paper, I illustrate these factors and their related issues through case studies of three countries: Singapore, Finland, and Egypt. I feature Finland and Singapore because of their significant success in both economic progress and educational attainment and because they represent alternative, policy-based approaches that support these developments. I pick Egypt because it is a less developed country that is in the midst of reform and currently in the process of formulating significant economic and educational policies to promote its development. I draw on the reviewed material, the framework, and the case studies to make recommendations for the development of ICT-based educational reform policies and programs that can strengthen the connection between public sector investments and economic and social transformation. In doing this, I emphasize the particular concerns and challenges of developing countries. DEVELOPMENT AND PUBLIC POLICY National policymakers have an extremely difficult job. They are confronted by tremendous global trends over which they have little or no control. They have to manage complex systems of interconnected departments within the context of an even more complex system of government, non-governmental, and private entities. They have to make high-risk, high-stakes decisions about public sector policies and programs. And they work with limited, sometimes extremely limited, resources. Policymakers must often accommodate the interests of other countries, multilateral institutions, and transnational corporations, while considering the needs and welfare of their citizens and the development of their national economy. They are challenged to provide the institutional environment within which the economy can function Kozma 120 effectively, craft regulations that moderate market failures, set monetary policies that balance unemployment and inflation, build infrastructure and supply essential public services that address the social and economic needs of the country, consider the impact of government spending on economic growth, and provide leadership that can nurture and facilitate economic and social development. Within this highly constrained policy space, how can policymakers balance global trends and national needs and set policies that foster economic growth and social development? What are the key factors that are most likely to make a difference when making policy decisions and public investments? What roles do technology and education play in this mix? While the answers to these questions challenge the brightest economists and most dedicated policymakers, they are, for this article, the context in which I explore the connections between ICT-based education reform and development policy. The Role of Government Policy in Development Despite these challenges for policymakers, economists have not always ascribed a central role to government policy in economic development (Chang, 2003). Classic economic theory describes the function of the free market and ignores that of government. Governments have not always reciprocated and the twentieth century was filled with a range of grand experiments in which governments directed, regulated, or otherwise intervened in their economies. However, from the 1980s to the mid-1990s, there was a general consensus (referred to as the “Washington Consensus”), expressed in the policies of international financial institutions and adopted by many governments, that economic growth depended on macroeconomic stability and market liberalization, rather than state interventions (Williamson, 1990, 2000). The International Monetary Fund, the World Bank, and donor nations emphasized the need for countries to avoid large national deficits, reform taxes, shift public expenditure patterns, privatize state-owned enterprises, and deregulate financial markets. According to the consensus, or at least one interpretation of it, the role of national policy intervention in economic development was limited. The argument postulated that by stepping back and selling off state enterprises; by allowing the free exchange of currencies; by easing barriers to trade and capital flow; and by reducing taxes, public expenditures, tariffs, and deficits; governments would activate the private sector, attract foreign investment, and stimulate natural market forces to achieve subsequent growth in gross domestic product (GDP). Public policy and public investment were to be redirected away from industry, trade, and the financial sectors. However, after a series of economic crises in Latin America, Southeast Asia, and Eastern Europe in the late ’90s, this consensus unraveled (Bird, 2001; Lall, 2004; Ranis, 2004; Rodrik, 1996; Stiglitz, 1998, 2002; Williamson, 1990, 2000). However, a few areas of agreement remain. Development economists generally continue to believe that price stability is important to investment and that large government deficits are problematic to economic growth. They believe that open trade and perhaps even privatization contribute to growth, although this position is now qualified by the need for legal and financial institutions and regulations that provide the necessary preconditions for liberalization. But with the failure of the Washington Consensus, there has been a reassertion of the importance of government policy and intervention. This reassertion emerged in large part as a result of an analysis of the role of state policy in the development and endurance of the “East ICT Policy and Development 121 Asian Miracle” (Jomo, 2001; Stiglitz & Yusuf, 2001). The “Miracle” refers to 5 years of significant annual economic growth in the early ’90s of eight Asian countries: Japan, Korea, Singapore, Taiwan, Hong Kong, Thailand, Malaysia and Indonesia (Yusuf, 2001). Four of these countries (Singapore, Hong Kong, Korea, and Thailand) had an annual per capita GDP above 5% between 1973 and 1996. An analysis of the causes of this growth, particularly in light of the 1997 crisis and the subsequent rebound, found that government policy played a strong role in creating the conditions for it (Stiglitz, 2001). While these Southeast Asian countries varied in their specific approaches to policy, Stiglitz found that among the policies that contributed to the rapid and robust growth were those that promoted education, facilitated the production and dissemination of knowledge and technologies, encouraged a high rate of savings, supported cooperation between government and business, and advanced industrial development. Alternative Approaches to Development Policy Economists (Sachs, 2005; Stiglitz, 2001) point out that there is no one development approach that fits all countries and circumstances. Each country must craft it own policies and strategies based on sound macroeconomic principles; its history, culture, and geography; its unique competitive advantages; and its development goals. But what are the factors that are going to most influence growth and development? Singapore, Finland, and Egypt illustrate alternative approaches that governments can take to answering this question. Economic Growth and the Case of Singapore The case study of Singapore illustrates one approach to state-supported economic growth (this case report is based on analyses by Anwar & Zheng, 2004; Blomström, Kokko, & Sjöholm, 2002; Castells & Himanen, 2002; Economic Review Committee, 2003; Hernandez, 2004; Rajan, 2003; Wilson, 2000). Singapore is an island city-state of 4.2 million people with an ethnic mix of approximately 77% Chinese, 14% Malay, and 8% Indian.1 It had an annual population growth rate from 1975-2003 of 2.2%. It is a parliamentary republic which the People’s Action Party has controlled since the separation of Singapore from Malaysia in 1965. Historically, political stability has been maintained at the expense of public participation and dissent. There is limited freedom of the press, with Singapore scoring 147th out of 167 countries on the Worldwide Press Freedom Index of the group Reporters Without Borders (2005). Yet Singapore has come to have a highly developed and successful free market economy that has experienced significant growth over the past several decades. Despite its very small population and landmass, Singapore ranks as the world’s 41st largest economy, according to the Economist (2003), with a gross domestic product in 2003 of US$91.3 billion (UNDP, 2005). Signapore has a high standard of living with an adjusted per capita GDP of US$24,481. However, Singapore has a high income disparity, with the ratio of the income of the top 10% to that of the bottom 10% being 17.7. It was ranked as the world’s seventh most competitive economy by the World Economic Forum in 2004 and second most competitive by the Institute for Management Development in 2004. These indices attempt to measure a country’s macroeconomic environment and the quality of public institutions and infrastructure. On the UNDP (2001) Technology Achievement Index that measures access, technology creation, and education, Singapore was ranked 10th internationally, with a score of Kozma 122 .585. The World Bank (2005) reports that that Singapore had 622 PCs per 1000 people in 2003 and the UNDP (2005) reports that there were 509 Internet users per 1000 people in that year. Since starting out as a developing country with its separation from Malaysia in 1965, Singapore’s economic growth has been closely linked to the emergence and evolution of state policies. The government’s initial strategy was to focus on the development of physical and labor capital. They instituted policies to develop a labor-intensive, export-driven industrial economy by building a private savings-financed infrastructure and attracting foreign direct investment (FDI) from transnational corporations. Singapore had few competitive advantages. It has essentially no agriculture or natural resources and a small domestic market. But it has a deep-water port and a strategic location in the shipping corridors of Southeast Asia. Through the 1960s and 1970s, Singapore was considered to be a reservoir of cheap labor as a result of the government’s wage controls and restrictions on labor unions. The particular combination of constraints and competitive advantages supported the strategy of promoting a labor intensive, low value-added, entrepot economy. Low tariffs allowed inexpensive imported parts to enter the country for assembly by low-wage laborers and the export of finished goods. The government created a forced retirement savings program to which both employees and employers contributed at a very high level, up to 40%, and used this to finance the development of a re-export-friendly infrastructure (such as port facilities, airport, roads, and telecommunications infrastructure), without recourse to high taxes, deficit financing, foreign commercial debt, or foreign aid that would otherwise put a drag on the economy. Human capital development was an important part of this strategy and Singapore built up a strong education system to supply a literate labor force with a reasonable knowledge in basic numeracy. The government coordinated these investments around the development of strategically selected industrial clusters—the geographical concentration of firms and ancillary units engaged in the same sector. The government courted transnational corporations in industries such as consumer electronics and computer peripherals by providing them with incentives for locating production facilities in their country and thus tapping into global value chains of these industries. Foreign businesses benefited from low import tariffs and implicit subsidization from ready-made factory sites, technical education and training, and education delivered in the English language. Because government investments were strongly complementary to the private sector, there was a large degree of “crowding in” of private investment and Singapore became a leading destination for FDI. Singapore in turn benefited from the importation of technology that came along with these investments. The government used the stability of its extended tenure to refine its strategy and develop it over time, leveraging initial gains in the economy to pursue a growth trajectory that moved from low value-added export to high value-added manufacturing and services. As a result of this strategy, Singapore’s GDP grew at an impressive average annual rate of about 4.9%, during the period 1975-2003 and 3.5% from 1990-2003 (UNDP, 2005). This compares to at rate of 2.0% and 2.1%, respectively, in the US during these periods. However, in the mid-1990s, economists noted that much of Singapore’s economic growth was due only to the accumulation of its input factors—growth of its labor force and foreign capital—rather than growth in total factor productivity (Krugman, 1994; Young, 1995). Total factor productivity is the amount of growth in the economy beyond that attributed to growth in labor or physical capital. While growth in labor or capital has diminishing returns, growth in total factor productivity—which is often attributed to technological innovation—is ICT Policy and Development 123 associated with compounded economic growth and sustainable development. In effect, Singapore was able to grow its work force, its physical capital, and its economy by tapping into the global market, bringing in transnational corporations, and with them imported technology developed elsewhere. However, Singapore did not develop its indigenous technological innovativeness; investment in local research and development was substantially lower than other newly industrialized countries in Asia. Furthermore, locally owned companies did not participate in economic growth, so economic development was not widespread. Consequently, analysts felt that Singapore’s initial growth was subject to diminishing returns and would run its course and flatten out. According to analysts, in order to continue its growth, Singapore would have to increase its research and development (R&D) and technological innovativeness, enhance the creativity of its labor force, and foster local entrepreneurship and widespread participation in the economy. In the late 1990s, the government acknowledged this problem and has subsequently shifted its policies to address it. In 2003, the cross-ministerial Economic Review Committee (2003) issued a report that recommended a number of measures to promote more sustainable economic growth. In addition to recommending upgrades in the existing industrial clusters of electronics, chemicals, biomedical sciences, and engineering, it promoted the development of new clusters, such as micro-electromechanical systems and nanotechnology, and new exportable services in areas like health care, education, and creative industries. Significantly, the government also recognized a third factor needed to sustain its economic growth— knowledge creation and technological innovativeness. Social Development and the Case of Finland The relatively narrow focus of Singapore’s early industrial policy of economic growth based on factor accumulation can be contrasted with the approach taken by Finland, which was more focused on social change and mobilizing widespread participation in development. Some development economists (Bourguignon, 2004; Sachs, 2004, 2005; Stiglitz, 1998) take the position that sustainable development policies must go beyond economic growth to include social development. The goal is to not only to minimize market distortions, develop physical infrastructure and human capital, and support economic growth but also to minimize distributional inequities, increase the standard of living, preserve natural resources, and develop society’s capacity to create, absorb, and adapt to new knowledge. In brief, the goal is the systemic transformation of society. The approach is systemic in that all levels of society are included in the development strategy: the private sector, the public sector, the community, the family, and the individual. It is transformational in that all of these levels are working together to move toward a shared vision and bring about fundamental change in society. The case study of Finland provides an example of this broad-based, systemic approach to development (Blomström, Kokko, & Sjöholm, 2002; Castells & Himanen, 2002; OECD, 2004a; Stevenson & Lundström, 2001). Finland achieved this transformation not by top-down command but by creating a policy environment that nurtured and built upon consensus about socially valued goals. These policies facilitated widespread, cross-sector organizational networking and supported the creation of new knowledge and technological innovation that compounded economic growth. Finland is a country of 5.2 million people, 93% of whom are ethnic Finns. The population in Finland is aging with an annual population growth rate between 1975 and 2003 was only Kozma 124 .4%. It has significant natural resources in timber, iron ore, copper, lead, zinc, and other metals and the extraction and use of these resources is the traditional base of the Finnish economy. Finland is a parliamentary republic with a strong multiparty system. It is a member of the European Union (EU) and the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). There is extensive participation in the political process and the country has a vibrant free press, scoring at the top of the 2004 Worldwide Press Freedom Index (Reporters Without Borders, 2004). Finland has maintained its commitment to the Nordic form of welfare state despite occasional declines in the economy and shifts between left and center governments over the past two decades. This commitment includes free high quality schooling from kindergarten through university and universal health care. Finland has a highly industrialized, largely free-market economy. The country ranks as the 31st largest economy according to the Economist (2003), with a GDP in 2003 of US$162 billion (UNDP, 2005). It has a high standard of living with an adjusted per capita GDP in 2003 of US$27,619. It was ranked as the world’s sixth most competitive economy in 2005 by the Institute for Management Development and as the world’s most competitive economy by the World Economic Forum in 2004. It ranked first in the UNDP (2001) Technology Achievement Index, with a score of .744 and it had a reported 441 PCs (World Bank, 2005) and 508 Internet users (UNDP, 2005) per 1,000 people. Between 1990 and 2000, there was a fundamental structural transformation of Finland’s economy, as it moved from a raw materials-based manufacturing economy to one with a high concentration in high-tech products, particularly in the area of telecommunications. During this period, unemployment was halved from 20% to 9% and the balance of trade moved from a large deficit to a significant surplus. The value of Helsinki’s stock market rose well over 200%, with 70% of its shares held by foreign investors. The country’s average annual per capita growth rate was 2.0% between 1975 and 2002. Between 1990 and 2002, the economy grew at an annual rate of 2.5%, despite a significant economic downturn early in that period. The US grew at a rate of 2.0% during this entire period. Most notably, Finland has among the lowest income disparities in the world, with the ratio of the income of the top 10% to that of the bottom 10% being 5.6 (UNDP, 2005). This compares to 17.7 for Singapore and 15.9 for the US. This dramatic economic transformation relied on two important interrelated developments: change in government policy and innovation in the private sector. In the early 1990s there was a significant recession throughout the Finnish economy with an average annual GDP growth rate of -3.5%. Despite the recession, the government continued its commitment to the educational, health, and social service components of the Finnish welfare state and this commitment was integrated into new policies that promoted economic growth and social development. In response to this crisis, the Government of Finland instituted a series of policy changes that shifted resources from the subsidization of large but uncompetitive industries to investments in infrastructure, education, and research and development. Public R&D investments grew rapidly in the ’90s, funded by revenue from the privatization of state-owned enterprises. These public investments were structured to encourage cross-sector, private-public collaborations in research and innovation. In parallel, private R&D investments grew at an even faster pace, the result being that the nation’s total R&D funding grew from 1.9% of GDP in 1990 to 3.4% in 2000, compared to 2.1% in 2000 for Singapore and 2.8% for the US. The use of this new knowledge was across sectors in Finland, with 40% of all innovative firms reporting that they cooperated with universities or public research institutes. The government encouraged entrepreneurial activity and the ICT Policy and Development 125 development of small and medium enterprises (SMEs) by supporting incubators for start-ups, promoting capital investments, and fostering cooperation between SMEs and large businesses. The result was broad-based growth. In 2000, there were approximately 200,000 SMEs in Finland employing about 60% of private sector work force. Policies shifted from direct support of specific industrial clusters to horizontal policy measures that supported cluster development, such as the improving cluster-specific skills and encouraging networking within clusters. Networking and improved knowledge flows increased the productive interactions among firms and organizations within clusters. There was also a shift from policy vision for how all sectors of society would benefit economic growth and the social condition in Finland. In the early ’90s, the Ministry of Finance appointed a broad-based board to draft a national information society strategy and articulate a vision for what Finland would be like as a country enriched by ICT. The board reported that, independence within government ministries to policy interdependency across ministries and sectors. The impact of these decentralized activities was focused and coordinated by a common vision for how all sectors of society would benefit economic growth and the social condition in Finland. In the early ’90s, the Ministry of Finance appointed a broad-based board to draft a national information society strategy and articulate a vision for what Finland would be like as a country enriched by ICT. The board reported that, The Finnish society will develop and apply the possibilities of the information society in an exemplary, diversified and sustainable manner in order to improve the quality of life, skills, and international competitiveness and interaction. . . . Finland will be developed into an information society, in which knowledge and expertise form part of the culture and also the key factor in production (Information Society Advisory Board, 2000, p. 5). The Information Society Program is now managed by the Information Society Council of ministers from Transport and Communications, Defense, Finance, Education, and representatives of the National Technology Agency, businesses, civic organizations, educational organizations, regional organizations, health care organizations, and unions. It is chaired by the Prime Minister. The Council periodically reviews issues and progress toward achieving the country’s development goals. These changes in government policies paralleled change in the private sector. The growth of the Finnish economy is probably most often associated with the dramatic transformation of one particular company: Nokia. Nokia started as a wood pulp and paper mill company but over time it added other ventures in rubber and cable works to develop into a large, hierarchically structured conglomerate. In the 1980s and early ’90s, Nokia experienced a significant financial crisis and their workforce was cut in half from 44,000 to 22,000 (Castells & Himanen, 2002). In response, Nokia appointed a new CEO who was the head of the company’s then-small mobile phones division, and a new, like-minded board. They transformed the company by divesting it of all businesses except telecommunications and focusing on the global market. The company shifted the funding of its growth from bank financing to portfolio investment that attracted both domestic and foreign investors and a Kozma 132 So informed, we can then explore how ICT-based education reform might be used as a lever to initiate economic growth and social development. Economic-Based Education Reform in Singapore An examination of the case of Singapore illustrates one way a country can make significant educational investments that pay off economically. In Singapore, education decision making is centralized at the Ministry of Education. The high quality of Singapore’s education system is evidenced by the fact that their students scored at the top of all countries in both mathematics and science in both the 4th and 8th grades in the 2003 Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study, or “TIMSS”, an international assessment of student achievement (Mullis, et al., 2004a, 2004b), as they have performed consistently well in mathematics over the past decade. UNDP (2005) figures indicate that the adult literacy rate is 96.6% for males and 88.6% for females. Singapore’s education policy is strongly linked to the development of human capital (Ashton, Green, Sung, & James, 2002). Officials from the Ministry of Trade and Industry chair the Economic Development Board, a cross-ministry agency that sets directions for policies in other relevant ministries, including education. From the beginning of Singapore’s modern economic development, the government tasked the education system to supply targeted clusters with skills necessary for their labor force. Anticipated skill needs were translated into production goals for secondary, polytechnic, and university institutions. As the initial, low-wage, export-based strategy achieved full employment and the development policy shifted toward high-value-added production, the government upgraded its education requirements. Secondary schools were to produce higher levels of skills in science, mathematics, and language; tertiary institutions were to produce more engineers and scientists. High-stakes tests were used to assure that the most able students had access to the higher levels of education. To upgrade the current labor force, a tax was imposed on lowwage jobs; the resulting funds were put into skill upgrading, and these funds could be returned to those corporations that participated in training programs. Unions also participated in the skills upgrading effort. The most recent shift to a knowledge economy development strategy has resulted in yet another set of economic development-driven changes in Singapore’s education system. Indeed, part of the current economic plan includes the development of Singapore as a regional educational hub that would contribute directly to economic growth. In coordination with shifts in the economic development plan toward a knowledge-based economy, the Education Ministry instituted a number of reforms under the title “Learning to Think, Thinking to Learn: Towards Thinking Schools, Learning Nation” (Ministry of Education, Singapore, 2000). An important component of the reform was to create a better balance in the curriculum between the acquisition of factual knowledge and the mastery and applications of concepts, and the development of individual curiosity, creativity, and enterprise. Thus the curriculum was broadened beyond a set of cores skills and values to include information skills, thinking skills and creativity, communication skills, knowledge application skills, self-management skills, and character development. To develop these skills and attitudes, cross-discipline project work was introduced into the classrooms. Assessment was revised to measure students’ skills in analyzing and applying information, thinking, and communicating. The plan also strengthened the connections between the school, the home, ICT Policy and Development 133 and the community, as part of a larger social development plan that encouraged a more active participation of citizens in community life. ICT has been an important component of Singapore’s education reform. In 1997, Singapore initiated a 5-year ICT plan, called “Master Plan for IT in Education,” to incorporate technology into the school system (Mui, Kan, & Chun, 2004). This $US1.2 billion project provided a national blueprint for the use of ICT in all schools and aimed to create an ICTenriched school environment for every child. This first master plan focused primarily on installing computers and high bandwidth Internet access in schools and classrooms and training teachers on the use of computers. In 2002 the Ministry launched its Master Plan 2, in coordination with “Thinking Schools: Learning Nation” reforms. The new master plan adopted a more systemic, holistic approach in which all the key components of the system— ICT, curriculum, assessment, instruction, professional development, and school culture— were integrated. Changes in one area were to be matched to changes in others within the Education Ministry. For example, the curriculum was reduced by 10 to 30% to allow for the integration of technology in the subject areas and university admission required the submission of an electronic portfolio of student work, in addition to exam scores. Societal Transformation and Education Reform in Finland The case of Finland provides a contrasting approach to the use of education in support of development, one focused on broad-based, decentralized decision making and collaborative knowledge creation. Finland has approximately 65,000 teachers and 900,000 primary and secondary students (UNESCO, 2004). According to UNDP (2005) figures, the government spends 6.4% of its GDP on education, about 12.7% of all government expenditures. Finnish students scored second to (but not statistically different from) students in Hong Kong, among 40 countries participating in the mathematics portion of the Program for International Student Assessment, or PISA (OECD, 2004c). (Singapore did not participate in the recent PISA nor did Finland participate in the recent TIMSS.) The country scored first among nations on the science and reading portions of this test of 15-year-olds. Finland also scored first in a special assessment of students’ problem solving skills that measured students’ ability to analyze problem situations, apply knowledge to solve problems, and evaluate, justify and communicate results (OECD, 2004d). The Government of Finland places a very high importance on education, viewing it and research and development as the foundation for economic growth and maintenance of the welfare society (Ministry of Education, 1999, 2004). In contrast with Singapore’s centralized structure, the school system in Finland is highly decentralized and decision-making is distributed across sectors. Each school writes its own curriculum based on very general guidelines from the National Board of Education and developed through discussions among teachers and parents. As a result, school curricula may be quite diverse across the country. Schools and teachers are also given the authority to select teaching materials that correspond to the curriculum. Businesses work closely with schools. Nearly one third of secondary students are enrolled in vocational education. Vocational education is conducted in collaboration with local businesses through apprenticeships and on-the-job training and with business leaders who participate in school decision making. Students in the general uppersecondary program can also choose to participate in work-related study. The purpose of Finnish higher education is to support research and development. And the aging of the Kozma 134 Finnish population has increased the importance of adult education and lifelong learning is a priority in education policies and action plans. The Ministry attributes the country’s excellent performance on PISA to free, high quality education across the country, high quality teachers with a high degree of autonomy, development-oriented assessment that gives students feedback on their progress, and a socioconstructivist approach to learning that treats students as autonomous learners who are guided to develop their study skills and plan their life career. The Ministry conceptualizes learning as an individual and community process of knowledge creation, a skillsand goal-oriented process that includes independent and collective problem solving. The education policy is coordinated with the national vision of an information society. As part of this the Finnish Information Society Program, the Ministry of Education developed the Information Strategy for Research and Education (Ministry of Education, Finland, 1995, 1999, 2004; Kankaanranta & Linnakylä, 2004). Like Singapore’s master plan, Finland’s Information Strategy also integrates ICT with other components of the system but the focus is much more on supporting knowledge production and use. Among the goals of this policy are the following: • Assuring the development of information products and services; • Assuring that all students have information society skills and are able to access, use, and provide information society services; • Developing learning-centered instructional approaches that focus on collaboration, individual styles of learning, learning difficulties, alternative ways of learning, and multidisciplinary approaches to learning; • Moving from “once-and-for-all” training to lifelong learning; • Ensuring that teachers achieve a high level of professional skills; • Building education and research networks into an open, global network; • Increasing Finnish language content on the Web. The Information Society Program has helped schools purchase computers, link them to the Internet, promote the introduction of ICT as a tool for teaching and learning, and carry out in-service training for teachers. The program’s aim is for all schools to be connected to networks and for all teachers to use ICT-based tools in their teaching. The purpose of the inservice training program is to provide teachers with the knowledge and skills needed to reform the pedagogical practices in their schools, especially with regard to collaborative teaching and learning, networking, and teamwork. The program also encourages the production of Finnish language instructional materials on the Web and this is now one of the industrial clusters that the Government is developing in the country. Issues of Development and Education Reform in Egypt Egypt has also targeted the education system as an important component of its development strategy and this case highlights the issues and constraints that many countries—particularly less developed countries—face as they consider education reform in the context of economic and social development. Egypt has approximately 16.5 million students at the primary and secondary levels taught by approximately 850,000 teachers (UNESCO, 2004). There are over 2.5 million students in institutions of higher education. The education system is currently very centralized, with a curriculum that is uniform in content and a schedule ICT Policy and Development 135 that is determined by the Ministry of Education. According to UNDP (2005) figures, the Government of Egypt makes a significant financial commitment to education, spending 3.9% of its GDP on education (compared to 3.1% in Singapore). However, the quality of its educational system is rather low, at least as measured by international assessments. Egypt recently participated in the TIMSS (Mullis, et al., 2004a, 2004b) and scored well below international averages in assessments of students’ knowledge of both science and mathematics in grade 8. The adult literacy rate is 67.2% for men and 43.6% for women. There are several interlocking factors within Egypt’s educational system that work against reform (El-Tawila, Lloyd, Mensch, Wassef, & Gamal, 2000; Kozma, 2004). The pedagogy, curriculum, and textbooks emphasize the memorization of subject matter facts and principles. Student examinations also emphasize memorization. These are high-stakes tests that determine their educational (and consequently, their economic) future. Teachers are paid very poorly and this, along with the emphasis on high-stakes examinations, has created a huge private tutoring business for teachers that is valued, by some estimates, at half the size of government expenditures on public education. The use of ICT in schools reinforces the curricular and pedagogical emphasis on rote learning. Recently, the government introduced educational reforms to prepare students for a modern future in which Egyptians are open to cultures of other peoples and school learning becomes integrated into that of the outside world (“[An] Egyptian reform pledge…, ” September 1, 2004). At its 2002 congress, the ruling National Democratic Party (2003) identified three pillars of their education reform policy: decentralization and increased community participation in decision making, improvement and monitoring of the quality of education, and development of the human and physical infrastructure in the education system, including the building of more schools, an improvement of the quality of administrators and teachers, a revision of the national exam, a reduction in illiteracy, and the improvement of higher education. In a major pilot reform project, communities in the Governorate of Alexandria were given authority to develop local school improvement plans they would use to guide their development and monitor their success. A board of trustees was established in each community to increase community involvement and input into the project. And teachers were trained in new teaching methods that encourage student-centered learning and high-level problem solving. Recently, this project was extended to 6 more of the country’s 26 governorates. As part of the education reform effort, the Party has advanced a plan that would integrate technology into the education system to both improve education and benefit the economy through the export of knowledge-based services and software production. The plan includes programs to increase the computer skills of pre-university students, increase the efficiency of learning across subject areas, improve the curriculum to match the capabilities of ICT, and upgrade vocational education. At the university level, the plan proposes the use of ICT to improve the quality of education and advance research. A number of resources have been dedicated to the effort, including a state-of-the-art technology facility that trains teachers in the use of computers and develops software on various topics in the curriculum. However, the Party’s plan does not coordinate ICT strategies with specific reform efforts and, in any case, the plan has not yet been incorporated into the education system. Several national and international donors, nongovernmental organizations, and transnational corporations have launched a variety of ICTbased educational programs in support of this effort, although they are typically not coordinated with each other or the nation reform effort. Kozma 136 Summary of Education and Development Approaches Again, Singapore and Finland provide interesting contrasts in their approaches to using education to advance development. Both approaches focused on developing an education system of very high quality. Singapore focused its education system narrowly on the development of human capital through tight coordination within and across ministries that subordinated education policy to economic interests of targeted industrial clusters. Curriculum standards and assessments were coordinated with skills needed for a productive workforce and the numbers of students at each level were adjusted to match shifts in Singapore’s development trajectory. The move from a strong basic education to a curriculum that emphasized mathematics, science, and technology was matched to the shift from a lowwage, low-value-added economy to a high-wage, high-value-added one. In a subsequent move, the curriculum, pedagogy, assessment, and educational ICT all emphasized the development of creativity, innovation, and entrepreneurship that is needed by a workforce prepared for the newly targeted knowledge-economy industrial clusters. Finland’s equally successful approach is far more decentralized and broad-based, linking the educational system to the civic and business communities. Decisions on curriculum and instruction are made by local schools and teachers. This distributed effort is coordinated by a vision of a Finnish information society in which technology and information sharing support economic growth and social development. The role of the government in Finland is to foster innovativeness, knowledge creation, and knowledge sharing. Policies and programs support this vision through the development of knowledge-building skills among teachers and students and through the use of student-centered and collaborative approaches to learning. Egypt faces significant challenges in harnessing its education system in service of its development plans. The government has articulated a vision of an information society in which widespread access to technology can nurture human capital, improve government services, promote Egyptian culture, and support economic growth. They have targeted the ICT sector as a vehicle for this economic growth and social development. Yet a number of barriers reduce the prospects for success: Illiteracy is high, the current technological infrastructure does not allow widespread use, and civil participation and freedoms of press and speech are limited. Education could contribute to the development of Egypt’s information society by improving the quality of its human capital, increasing knowledge creation and innovativeness, and fostering knowledge sharing. A reform effort has been initiated and technology has been identified as an important component of this effort. But there are major systemic barriers to change within the education system itself. Most significantly, the country’s curriculum and assessment systems emphasize the memorization of facts and this works against innovative thinking and knowledge creation in schools. To succeed with the information society, Egypt will need to align curriculum, pedagogy, assessment, and the use of technology with its vision of the future. Education Reform and Development The thread that ties the Egyptian, Finnish, and Singaporean experiences together is the need to coordinate the education system with development goals. To date, most countries—even OECD countries—have merely aimed at improving their education systems at the margin (OECD, 2004b). Singapore and Finland are two countries that have invested significantly in ICT Policy and Development 137 education reform and have developed education systems that are among the best in the world. Their education systems have contributed significantly to their national development goals. These two countries represent alternative models for how educational investment can offer returns for development. In the case of Singapore, increased educational investments lead to a higher quality workforce. Within this model, investments are directed toward increased efficiencies and effectiveness in the education system and toward students that are better prepared for the work world. A higher quality, more skilled workforce increases the capacity of labor to absorb new physical capital and this deepening of capital increases output per worker, productivity, and significant economic growth. This approach to education change could be called the capacity development approach to education reform. However, OECD concedes that most countries have not yet tried to harness their education systems as a means of transforming the economy and society. An alternative approach to education change, represented by Finland, is what could be called the knowledge creation approach. With this approach, educational investment is used to change not only how well students perform but what it is that they do within schools and outside of them. It also changes what teachers do and how schools function. The focus of this change is on developing the capacity of students, teachers, schools, and communities to create, share, and use new knowledge, such that individual and organizational knowledge creation, learning, and improvement become continuous, self-sustaining activities. These capacities support a qualitative change in the economy. The capability of the workers individually and society collectively to think creatively and innovatively and to continuously create, share, and use new knowledge leads not only to better ways of doing old things but also new ways of doing entirely new things, thus resulting in economic transformation and sustained growth. This development approach includes social transformation to the extent that gains in the economy are funneled into achieving socially valued goals, such as improved health care and access to it, a cleaner environment, increased democratic participation, and enhanced human services, including improved education which creates, in turn, a more prosperous society and a more productive economy. Thus economic and social change feeds on itself, resulting in a virtuous cycle of sustained development in which economic growth funds the improvements in the social condition and improvements in the social condition supports compounding economic growth. What implications do these approaches have for reform in classrooms and schools? How can reform of specific components of the system, such as changes in curriculum, pedagogy, and assessment, interact with the productivity factors that lead to sustained economic growth and social development? In the following sections, I examine implications of the capacity development and knowledge creation approaches for changes in these components. Curriculum Reform Curricula have traditionally focused on the scope and sequence of subject matter topics that are to be covered within an educational program. These are codified as facts, concepts, principles, and procedures related to mathematics, biology, history, language, and so on. Too often, curricula are focused more at the lower-end, easier-to-teach-and-test range of this skill continuum. Too often understanding key ideas is sacrificed to breadth of topics, as “coverage” trumps depth. Too often schools stress the memorization of specific facts and procedures outside of the context of their use in the real world and apart from the experiences that students may bring with them to the classroom and the needs of communities to which they return. Kozma 138 Students that go through such a curriculum are poorly prepared to participate in the modern labor force and address contemporary social problems. This is certainly the case for Egypt. The capacity development approach to reform can revise the curriculum to better prepare students for the world of work by moving the curriculum to the higher end of the skills continuum and setting high expectations for student achievement (Tucker, 1996). Beyond memorization of facts, the learning of complex concepts, principles, and procedures leads to a higher quality, better prepared workforce that has the skills needed for higher value jobs. Students are more likely to have a deeper understanding of the curriculum when it focuses on a smaller number of concepts, principles, and procedures that are at the core of a subject area than when students and teachers spend their time superficially “covering” a large number of topics (Bransford, Brown, & Cocking, 2000). Students learn better when curriculum goals are built on their own interests and everyday experiences and they are better prepared for the world outside of school when these goals are connected to community conditions and needs. This entails that districts, schools, and even teachers have a certain amount of flexibility within the curriculum framework to adjust instructional goals to the interests of particular groups or individual students and to community goals and the requirements of local enterprises. As a consequence, the curriculum goals related to mathematics, science, social studies, and literature may be somewhat different for rural students than urban students and for students of different cultural backgrounds, based on the social and economic needs of their local communities. But what of the knowledge creation approach to education reform? Is there a way that changes in the curriculum can support fundamental economic and social transformation? Economists contend that transformations of this sort require new kinds of skills, capabilities, and attitudes, and these need to be incorporated into the curriculum (OECD, 2001a). If students are to participate in an economy and society in which the creation, sharing, and use of new knowledge are the basis for sustained development, their preparation must go beyond the learning of established knowledge. Beyond the learning of key concepts and principles in the subject areas, students must be able to engage in the sustained, collaborative process of building on current knowledge to create new knowledge (Bereiter, 2002). These become new goals of the curriculum. Knowledge creation skills and habits include information management, communication, working in teams, entrepreneurialism, global awareness, civic engagement, problem solving, using technology, and designing systems (Lall, 2000; Partnership for the 21st Century, 2003, 2005; Resnick & Wirt, 1996). But paramount among the knowledge creation skills are those that allow students to continue their learning throughout their lifetimes what are sometimes called metacognitive skills (Bransford, Brown, & Cocking, 2000): students’ ability to set their own goals, determine what they already know, assess their strengths and weaknesses, design a learning plan, stay on task, track their own progress, and build on successes and adjust to failures. This set of skills among all others will enable students to sustain their own personal development and contribute to that of the economy and society. Pedagogical Reform With traditional instructional approaches, teachers are the ultimate sources of knowledge, which they then transmit to students who passively receive and record this knowledge in memory. Research evidence suggests that this approach is not very effective. The sciences of ICT Policy and Development 139 learning (Bransford et al., 2000) specify a number of pedagogical reforms that help students acquire more skills and develop their capacity to live and work productively outside of school. The focus of these reforms is on the understanding of key concepts, principles, and procedures. Factual knowledge is organized around important concepts and introduced as students need it and within the context of solving problems. Rather than being passive listeners, students are actively engaged in applying their new knowledge to the solution of complex tasks. Teachers support student learning by individualizing instruction to the needs of students, addressing misconceptions they may have, and providing the time that students need to learn. This model also stresses the usefulness of school knowledge for the real world. The transfer of school learning is facilitated by relating concepts, principles, and procedures to a wide variety of appropriate, real world examples and situations. However, moving the education system beyond knowledge acquisition to knowledge creation involves a more profound participation of students in their own learning. Learning how to learn is both a goal and a central classroom practice. Students identify problems or goals of shared value and produce plans and products that will accomplish these goals or solve the problems (Blumenfeld et al., 1991). In helping students create and share new knowledge, teachers design tasks and activities that engage students in these knowledgebuilding processes. To support student learning, teachers explicitly model cognitive and social processes of knowledge building and they prompt students to take up these practices for themselves (Brown & Palinscar, 1989). For example, in science classes, teachers structure student investigations in which they pose scientific questions, plan and design experimental procedures, construct apparatus, carry out experiments, interpret data, draw conclusions, and present their findings (Krajcik et al., 1998). But knowledge creation is not restricted to science. Teachers have developed knowledge-building communities in mathematics, social studies, and literature in which students are engaged in sustained investigations whereby students generate new ideas by building on and extending the ideas of others. Within these communities, students support each other’s learning and develop a shared value for this ongoing process (Brown & Campione, 1994; Scardamalia & Bereiter, 1994). Assessment Reform Traditionally, educational assessment has been used as a way of periodically arraying students along a continuum of ability or school knowledge and selecting those who are most fit for the next level of study. In some countries, high-stakes tests of students are used to identify underperforming schools. Such assessments serve to select students who are most capable for highlevel positions or identify schools that have large numbers of high-performing students but they do little to lift the overall quality of the student learning or the performance of schools (Amrein & Berliner, 2002). Because assessments often serve to organize the work of schools, teachers, and students, reform of assessment practices may be the single change that, if coordinated with an overarching plan or vision, can most influence all other changes in the education system. Assessment reform can support the general upgrade in the capacity of the workforce by improving the learning of all students. Assessments can support the deepening of learning when they are integrated into regular, ongoing instructional activity and when they provide teachers and students with periodic feedback on learning progress (Bransford et al., 2000; Pellegrino, Chudowsky, & Glaser, 2001). Since some students take longer to achieve Kozma 140 curricular goals or have different instructional problems than other students, detailed information on what it is that specific students know and how they think can be particularly useful to teachers as they customize lessons. Assessment reform can also improve the quality of student learning by upgrading the complexity of tasks. While traditional assessments rely on multiple-choice or fill-in-the-blank responses that favor lower levels of knowledge, performance assessments and projects provide students with tasks that examine higher levels of knowledge and are more similar to the types of tasks that students will encounter in the real world (Shavelson, Baxter, & Pine, 1992). Performance tasks are particularly useful in displaying both students’ knowledge and their cognitive and social processes, and this information can aid teachers in planning subsequent instructional interventions. Changes in assessment can be crucial in the knowledge creation approach by supporting the continuous improvement of students, teachers, and schools. Self-assessment and peer assessment can be particularly important in supporting the development of metacognitive skills and continuous improvement (Bransford et al., 2000; Shepard, Hammerness, DarlingHammond, & Rust, 2005). With the guidance of teachers, students use selfand peer assessments to develop abilities to monitor their own progress, distinguish between highquality and low-quality products, and provide others with useful feedback and support. The discourse among students elevates what students expect of themselves and fosters a share value of learning. These skills, practices, and values sustain high quality efforts outside of school and over a lifetime. Similarly, when teachers share their instructional goals and plans, observe each other’s practice, and support each other’s professional development efforts, they create an expectation of high-quality teaching and it becomes a core value of the school. Used in this way, assessment reforms improve both teacher performance and student learning. Teacher Professional Development As with the development of human capital in business, the productivity of education can be significantly improved by upgrading the skills and knowledge of teachers and their ability to apply these in the classroom. Educational researchers have identified two kinds of teacher knowledge that can significantly improve their practice: their understanding of their subject matter and the pedagogical knowledge about how students learn the subject and how it is best taught (Darling-Hammond, 1997; Shulman, 1986). Teachers must understand their subject thoroughly enough to organize it so that students can understand underlying concepts, procedures, and principles. Teachers must also know what students know and what they believe about their subject, what students typically misunderstand, and how students learn. Teacher professional development in these areas that are connected to classroom practice could improve the effectiveness of instruction. Beyond improvements in teacher knowledge, the transformation of education into a source of sustained knowledge creation and innovation requires teachers likewise to engage in sustained learning, knowledge creation, innovation, and knowledge sharing. In this regard, researchers advocate an approach to teacher professional development that builds a community of practice focused on continuous improvement (Bransford, Darling-Hammond, & LePage, 2005; McLaughlin & Talbert 2001). With this approach, teachers work together, within subject areas and across schools, to identify problems of practice, collaboratively generate and try out solutions, share resources and best practices, and build a body of ICT Policy and Development 141 professional knowledge that influences classroom instruction (Little, 1993; Talbert & McLaughlin, 1993). School Organization Traditional schools are hierarchical structures with teachers’ classroom practice tightly controlled by curriculum inspectors and principals. In some countries, teachers are often held accountable for teaching a specific lesson in a specific way on a particular day. Significant resources are expended on managing the organization. However, to develop students’ capacity and the quality of their learning, schools need to be structured around student understanding, rather the management of teaching (Darling-Hammond, 1997). In schools restructured for understanding, students work together on engaged extended projects and teachers work with students and their colleagues on designing an environment that supports learning. These practices are facilitated by structural changes in the school, such as allowing for flexible student grouping or altering the school schedule to allow more time for student projects and more time for teacher planning and collaboration. On the other hand, schools can be restructured to continuously engage in ongoing innovation—a capacity that, in effect, creates a learning organization (Elmore, 2004; Fullan, 2001a, 2001b; Senge et al., 2000). Within such organizations, teachers have significant autonomy to modifying the curriculum and create the learning environment in their classes. They also have control over the discretionary resources—such as funds for materials and supplies—that are needed to carry out their plans. At the same time, teachers take responsibility for contributing to shared goals and moving toward the shared vision. These teachers’ efforts are coordinated by shared goals for and a local vision of what the school should become. Consensus on the school’s goals and vision is fostered by cooperative decision making among teachers, administrators, parents, and community members. School principals or headmasters play an important role by developing this consensus and structuring the school environment to support learning and the creation of knowledge. With these shared goals in mind, community members, teachers, and students spend their time moving the school forward rather than trying to figure out what policymakers want them to do and then doing it— or not. The impact of this innovativeness, autonomy, and accountability at the local level is compounded throughout the education system by what might be called “coordinated decentralization”: local decisions and actions that are guided by higher level goals and visions. Systemic Reform and Educational Transformation A prominent feature of the education systems in both Singapore and Finland is that all of the components are coordinated around goals and visions. Individually, any of the above reform efforts can improve education. But to get the kind of results achieved in these two countries, education reform needs to be systemic. Policies and programs need to be targeting all of the components of the system in a coordinated and coherent way so that reform-based changes, in turn, become mutually reinforcing and promote continuous improvement (Cohen & Hill, 2001; Elmore, 1995; Vinovskis, 1996). Changes in curriculum have to be coordinated with changes in pedagogy and assessment. Changes in curriculum, pedagogy, and assessment entail new capabilities for teachers. To maximize impact and be sustained, school change must be coordinated with the community and with the larger system (Sergiovanni, 1994; Kozma 148 In our hypothetical country, it turns out that there has been a strong tradition of hands-on pedagogy in the schools, although this has been used more as a set of classroom activities than a foundation for deep understanding. Also, several multinational ICT companies had initiated pilot projects that put networked computers into schools, primarily in urban areas, and trained teachers on the use of technology. The subcommittee’s plan applied the growth factors in the framework to the education system in support of the national development plan. The primary emphasis of the plan was also on the development of human capacity of the students and the teachers. It focused on improving student learning by shifting teachers’ hands-on instructional practices to project-based learning focused on student understanding, problem solving, and creative thinking in math, sciences, and the creative arts. The application of project-based learning would be stressed at the secondary level with the goal of producing better prepared graduates and thus providing the most immediate payoff for the economy. ICT would be used to develop students’ technology skills and to support projectbased learning through the use of the Internet and various productivity and creativity tools. The ministry would phase in national assessments that reduce the recall of factual knowledge and include real world problem solving tasks. These changes would better prepare students for participation in manufacturing and entertainment industries that would become increasingly innovative. These shifts would require a significant program of teacher professional development. This too would be supported by ICT that enabled teachers to develop and share resources and best practices within disciplines across schools. ICT-based education would be used to address social inequities by extending the ICT infrastructure to rural schools and community technology centers. The Internet would allow for the inexpensive distribution of resources to remote areas, and rural teachers would have access to materials, other teachers, and curriculum experts in other locations. Emphasis would be given to a deeper understanding of science and the development of technological skills. Equipped with these skills and knowledge, rural students would be better prepared to use modern agricultural practices or to work in the nearby eco-tourism industry. Remote access to experts would support adult literacy programs, given that there are few teachers experienced in adult learning in rural locations. The community technology centers would house resources to support education reform, adult literacy, and agricultural extension services and this colocation would allow for the coordination of these services and their impacts. The subcommittee set measurable goals for examining the impact of education reform and the use of ICT on student learning. This hypothetical example illustrates how the development framework and a systemic approach to policy formulation can align economic, social, and educational strategies to leverage strengths, coordinate investments, consolidate gains, and advance national development goals and visions. The resulting strategies would differ from country to country. In some cases, economic change may lead social and educational development. In other cases, ICT-based education reform may make a significant contribution to the launch of social and economic development. But regardless of the starting point and subsequent trajectory, the intent is that by aligning policies and programs across factors and sectors, application of the framework supports educational, social, and economic transformation. Implications for National Policies and Programs The specific policy implications for this framework would emerge from its application in each national context. However, there are some general policy considerations that can guide policy makers applying it to analyze current situations and crafting development strategies. ICT Policy and Development 149 Create a Vision Policy leadership will be the key to any successfully development strategy, particularly if these efforts are to contribute to economic and social transformation. Successful development in Finland was guided by a clear vision of how the availability of new technologies could increase economic productivity, improve the quality of life, and enrich the culture. This vision was founded on broad-based consensus among public and private stakeholders and, as a result, it coordinated distributed efforts across sectors to accomplished shared goals. Investment of time and effort to create such a vision at the national or ministerial level will have huge operational paybacks. Develop a Plan Singapore, on the other hand, had a detailed plan for developing the economy and this guided their long-term efforts. Many countries, including both Singapore and Finland, have national plans for implementing ICT in education. These master plans describe how ICT can contribute to education reform and improvement and tie it into economic and social development. Typically the plan describes the hardware, software, and networking that will be implemented in schools, as well as the technical support and technical training for teachers. The national plan should specify measurable goals, authorize and fund specific programs, and projects to advance this vision and provide the resources needed to implement them. To reinforce broader education reform, the technology plan should also describe how technology will be coordinated with changes in curriculum, pedagogy, assessment, teacher professional development, and school restructuring. Align Policies To realize the full impact of ICT-based education reform, educational policies and programs need to be coordinated with those in other ministries, such as economic development, human resource development, telecommunications, agriculture, and rural and urban development. A national, cross-ministerial ICT coordinating agency or council can facilitate this policy and programmatic harmonization as well as promote the sharing of knowledge and resources. The committee should include participants from outside the government, such as business people, unions, university faculty, members of scientific organizations, and so on, as was the case in both Singapore and Finland. Monitor and Evaluate Outcomes Significant public investments demand a significant return in terms of educational, social, and economic benefits. National development plans should specify a stepped trajectory of expected outcomes. Measures of both the implementation process and the outcome should be used to continuously monitor the progress of programs toward goals and provide information to policymakers that can be used to refine policies and programs and adjust trajectories. In this way, initial policies and programs can be shaped to assure on-going coordination and foster fundamental changes in education, society, and the economy. Kozma 150 ICT and Extreme Poverty Applications of the above principles to policy formulation aided development in Singapore and Finland. They can also aid development in countries like Egypt. ICT and ICT-based education reform can play an important part in these developments. However, there are many countries, primarily those in sub-Saharan Africa, that are much worse off than Egypt and other lower middle-income countries. Because of unfavorable geography, disease, physical isolation, climate stress, environmental degradation, and lack of capital, these countries are not in a position to move out of poverty—they are trapped (Sachs, 2005). It is clear that education is an important part of the formula for breaking out of the trap. It is yet unclear if and how ICT might also be a part of that formula. For the same lack of capital investment, there are yet few models of ICT applications in extremely poor countries. The poor would benefit from research and new knowledge that applies these important growth factors to address their needs. ENDNOTE 1. Country ethnicity statistics are taken from the World Factbook, U.S. Central Intelligence Agency (2005), as is information on form of government. All other demographic and economic statistics are taken from the 2005 Human Development Report, UNDP unless otherwise noted. REFERENCES Amrein, A. & Berliner, D. (2002). High-stakes testing, uncertainty, and student learning. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 10(18), 1-65. Retrieved on July 18, 2005 from http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v10n18/ Anwar, S., & Zheng, M. (2004). Government spending on research and development and industrial production in Singapore. International Journal of Asian Management, 3, 53-65. Ashton, D., Green, F., Sung, J., & James, D. (2002). The evolution of education and training strategies in Singapore, Taiwan, and S. Korea: A development model of skill formation. Journal of Education and Work, 15, 5-30. Aubert, J.-E., & Reiffers, J.-L. (2003). Knowledge economies in the Middle East and North Africa: Toward new development strategies. Washington, DC: World Bank. Barro, R. (2000). Education and economic growth. Paris: OECD. Bereiter, C. (2002). Education in a knowledge society. In B. Smith (Ed.), Liberal education in a knowledge society (pp. 11-34). Chicago: Open Court. Bhagwati, J. (2004). In defense of globalization. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Bird, G. (2001). What happened to the Washington Consensus? World Economics, 2(4), 33-51. Blomström, M., Kokko, A., & Sjöholm, F. (2002). Growth and innovation policies for a knowledge economy: Experiences from Finland, Sweden, and Singapore. Background paper for the LAC Flagship Report. Washington, DC: World Bank. Blumenfeld, P., Soloway, E., Marx, R., Krajcik, J., Guzdial, M., & Palinscar, A. (1991). Motivating projectbased learning: Sustaining the doing, supporting the learning. Educational Psychologist, 26, 369-398. Bourguignon, F. (2004). The poverty-growth-inequality triangle. Washington, DC: World Bank. Bransford, J., Brown, A., & Cocking, R. (2000). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school (2nd ed.). Washington, DC: National Academic Press. ICT Policy and Development 151 Bransford, J., Darling-Hammond, L., & LePage, P. (2005). Introduction. In J. Bransford & L. DarlingHammond (Eds.), Preparing teachers for a changing world: What teachers should learn and be able to do (pp. 1-39). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Brown, A., & Campione, J. (1994). Guided discovery in a community of learners. In K. McGilly (Ed.), Classroom lessons: Integrating cognitive theory and classroom practice (pp. 229-270). Cambridge, MA: MIT. Brown, A., & Palinscar, A. (1989). Guided, cooperative learning and individual knowledge acquisition. In L. Resnick (Ed.), Knowing, learning, and instruction (pp. 393-451). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Bureau of Labor Statistics, United States. (1996). Amount of formal and informal training received by employees. Washington, DC: Bureau of Labor Statistics. Castells, M., & Himanen, P. (2002). The information society and the welfare state: The Finnish model. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Central Intelligence Agency, United States. (2005). The world fact book. Retrieved on September 7, 2005 from http://www.odci.gov/cia/publications/factbook/index.html Chang, H.-J. (2001). Conditions for successful technology policy in developing countries: Learning rents, state structures, and institutions. Maastricht, the Netherlands: United Nations University. Chang, H.-J. (2003). The market, the state and institutions in economic development. In H.-J. Change (Ed.), Rethinking development economics (pp. 41-60). London: Anthem Press. Clark, R. (1983). Reconsidering research on learning from media. Review of Educational Research, 53, 445-459. Cohen, D., & Hill, H. (2001). Learning and policy: When state education reform works. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Coley, R. (1995). Dreams deferred: High school dropouts in the United States. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Services. Darling-Hammond, L. (1997). The right to learn: A blueprint for creating schools that work. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Department of Education, United States. (2004). Toward a new golden age in American education: How the Internet, the law, and today’s students are revolutionizing expectations. Washington, DC: Department of Education. Economic Review Committee, Singapore. (2003). New challenges, fresh goals: Towards a dynamic global city. Singapore: Ministry of Trade and Industry. Retrieved on July 18, 2005 from www.mti.gov.sg/public/ERC/frm_ERC_default.asp?sid=1487 Economist. (2003). Pocket world in figures 2004. London: The Economist. Educational Testing Service [ETS]. (2002). Digital transformation: A framework for ICT literacy. Princeton, NJ: ETS. Egyptian reform pledge that must be achieved, An. (2004, September 1). Daily Star, p. 1. El-Laithy, H., & Lokshin, M. (2003). Poverty and economic growth in Egypt: 1995-2000. Washington, DC: World Bank. El-Tawila, S., Lloyd, C., Mensch, B., Wassef, H., & Gamal, Z. (2000). The school environment in Egypt: A situation analysis of public preparatory schools. New York: Population Council. Elmore, R. (1995). Structural reform and educational practice. Educational Researcher, 24(9), 23-26. Elmore, R. (2004). School reform from the inside out: Policy, practice, and performance. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press. European Commission. (2000). eEurope: An information society for all. Brussels, Belgium: European Commission. Eurydice. (2004). Key data on information and communications technology in schools in Europe. Brussels, Belgium: Eurydice. Fullan, M. (2001a). Leading in a culture of change. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Fullan, M. (2001b). The new meaning of educational change (3rd ed.). New York: Teachers College Press. Haddad, W., & Draxler, A. (Eds.). (2002). Technologies for education: Potentials, parameters, and prospects. Paris: UNESCO. Hepp, P., Hinostroza, J., Laval, E. & Rebein, L., (2004). Technology in schools: Education, ICT, and the knowledge society. Washington, DC: World Bank. Hernandez, Z. (2004). Industrial policy in East Asia: In search for lessons. Background paper for the World Development Report 2005. Washington, DC: World Bank. Kozma 152 Information Society Advisory Board, Finland. (2000). Finland as an Information Society: The report of the Information Society Advisory Board. Helsinki, Finland: Information Society Advisory Board. Institute for Management Development [IMD]. (2004). World competitiveness scoreboard. Lausanne, Switzerland: Institute for Management Development. International Monetary Fund [IMF]. (2004). IMF concludes 2004 Article IV consultation with the Arab Republic of Egypt. Washington, DC: IMF. International Society for Technology in Education [ISTE]. (1998). National educational technology standards for students. Eugene, OR: ISTE. International Telecommunications Union [ITU]. (2001). Internet on the Nile: Egypt case study. Geneva, Switzerland: ITU. Jomo, K. (2001). Rethinking the role of government policy in Southeast Asia. In J. Stiglitz & S. Yusuf (Eds.), Rethinking the East Asian Miracle (pp. 461-508). Washington, DC: World Bank. Jones, R. (2003). Local and national ICT policies. In R. Kozma (Ed.), Technology, innovation, and educational change: A global perspective (pp. 163-194). Eugene, OR: International Society for Technology in Education. Kaestle, C., Campbell, A., Finn, J., Johnson, S., & Mikulecky, L. (2001). Adult literacy and education in America. Washington, DC: National Center for Educational Statistics. Kankaanranta, M., & Linnakylä, P., (2004). National policies and practices on ICT in education: Finland. In T. Plomp, R. Anderson, N. Law, & A. Quale (Eds.), Cross-national information and communication technology policies and practices in education (pp. 213-232). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing [IAP]. Kozma, R. (2003a). Summary and implications for ICT-based educational change. In R. Kozma (Ed.), Technology, innovation, and educational change: A global perspective (pp. 217-240). Eugene, OR: International Society for Technology in Education. Kozma, R. (2003b). Technology and classroom practices: An international study. Journal of Research on Computers in Education, 36, 1-14. Kozma, R. (Ed.). (2003c). Technology, innovation, and educational change: A global perspective. Eugene, OR: International Society for Technology in Education. Kozma, R. (2004). Technology, economic development, and educational reform: Global changes and an Egyptian response. Arlington, VA: Pal-Tech. Kozma, R., & McGhee, R. (2003). ICT and innovative classroom practices. In R. Kozma (Ed.), Technology, innovation, and educational change: A global perspective (pp. 43-80). Eugene, OR: International Society for Educational Technology. Kozma, R., & Shank, P. (1998). Connecting with the 21st century: Technology in support of educational reform. In C. Dede (Ed.), ASCD yearbook 1998: Learning with technology (pp. 3-30). Alexandria, VA: American Society for Curriculum and Development. Kozma, R., & Wagner, D. (in press). Reaching the most disadvantaged with ICT: What works? In R. Sweet & D. Wagner (Eds.), ICT in non-formal and adult education: Supporting out-of-school youth and adults. Paris: OECD. Krajcik, J., Blumenfeld, P., Marx, R., Bass, K., Fredricks, J., & Soloway, E. (1998). Inquiry in project-based science classrooms: Initial attempts by middle school students. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 7, 313-351. Krugman, P. (1994). The myth of Asia’s miracle. Foreign Affairs, 73, 62-78. Lall, S. (2000). Skills, competitiveness and policy in developing countries (Working Paper Number 46). Oxford, UK: Queen Elizabeth House. Lall, S. (2003). Technology and industrial development in an era of globalization. In. H.-J. Chang (Ed.), Rethinking development economics (pp. 277-298). London: Wimbledon. Lall, S. (2004). Reinventing industrial strategy: The role of government policy in building industrial competitiveness. New York: UN. Little, J. (1993). Teachers’ professional development in a climate of educational reform. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 15, 129-151. McLaughlin, M., & Talbert, J. (2001). Professional communities and the work of high school teaching. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. McNamara, K. (2003). Information and communication technologies, poverty and development: Learning from experience. Washington, DC: Information for Development Program [infoDev]. ICT Policy and Development 153 Means, B., & Olson, K. (1995). Technology’s role in education reform: Findings from a national study of innovating schools. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement. Means, B., Penuel, W., & Padilla, C. (2001). The connected school: Technology and learning in high school. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Ministry of Communication, Information, and Technology, Egypt. (2005). Egypt’s information society. Cairo, Egypt: Ministry of Communication, Information, and Technology. Ministry of Education, Finland. (1995). National strategy for education, training, and research in the information society. Helsinki, Finland: Ministry of Education. Ministry of Education, Finland. (1999). Education, training and research in the information society: A national strategy for 2000-2004. Helsinki, Finland: Ministry of Education. Ministry of Education, Finland. (2004). Education and research 2003-2008. Helsinki, Finland: Ministry of Education. Ministry of Education, Singapore. (2000). Mission with a passion: Making a difference. Singapore: Ministry of Education. Mubarak fully supports economic reform—Rashid. (2004, September 30). Egyptian Gazette, p. 1. Mui, Y., Kan, E., & Chun, T., (2004). National policies and practices on ICT in education: Singapore. In T. Plomp, R. Anderson, N. Law, & A. Quale (Eds.), Cross-national information and communication technology policies and practices in education (pp. 495-508). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing [IAP]. Mullis, I., Martin, M., Gonzalez, E., & Chrostowski, S. (2004a). TIMSS 2003 international mathematics report. Amsterdam: International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement [IEA]. Mullis, I., Martin, M., Gonzalez, E., & Chrostowski, S. (2004b). TIMSS 2003 international science report. Amsterdam: International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement [IEA]. National Center for Educational Statistics [NCES]. (2002). The conditions of education. Washington, DC: National Center for Educational Statistics. National Democratic Party [NDP], Egypt. (2003). Towards a knowledge based society: Integrating technology into education. Cairo, Egypt: National Democratic Party. Navaretti, G., & Tarr, D. (2000). International knowledge flows and economic performance: A review of the evidence. The World Bank Economic Review, 14, 1-15. Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development [OECD]. (1996). The knowledge-based economy. Paris: OECD. Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development [OECD]. (1999). Human capital investment. Paris: OECD. Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development [OECD]. (2001a). Education policy analysis: Education and skills. Paris: OECD. Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development [OECD]. (2001b). The well-being of nations: The role of human and social capital. Paris: OECD. Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development [OECD]. (2002). Education policy analysis. Paris: OECD. Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development [OECD]. (2004a). Economic survey of Finland, 2004. Paris: OECD. Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development [OECD]. (2004b). Innovation in the knowledge economy: Implications for education and learning. Paris: OECD. Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development [OECD]. (2004c). Learning for tomorrow’s world: First results of PISA 2003. Paris: OECD. Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development [OECD]. (2004d). Problem solving for tomorrow’s world: First measures of cross-curricular competencies from PISA 2003. Paris: OECD. Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development [OECD] & Statistics Canada. (2000). Literacy in the information age. Paris: OECD. Pal, L. (2001). Beyond policy analysis: Public issue management in turbulent times. Scarborough, Ontario, Canada: Nelson Thomson Learning. Partnership for the 21st Century. (2003). Learning for the 21st Century. Washington, DC: Partnership for the 21st Century. Partnership for the 21st Century. (2005). A report on the landscape of 21st century assessment. Washington, DC: Partnership for the 21st Century. Kozma 154 Pellegrino, J., Chudowsky, N., & Glaser, R. (2001). Knowing what students know: The science and design of educational assessment. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. Perraton, H., & Creed, C. (2002). Applying new technologies and cost-effective delivery systems in basic education. Paris: UNESCO. Psacharopoulos, G., & Patrinos, H. (2002). Returns to investment in education: A further update. World Bank Policy Research Working Paper 2881. Washington, DC: World Bank. Quellmalz, E., & Kozma, R. (2003). Implications of Technology for Learning and Assessment. Assessment in Education, 10, 389-407. Radwan, S. (2002). Employment and unemployment in Egypt: Conventional problems, unconventional remedies. Cairo, Egypt: Egyptian Center for Economic Studies. Rajan, R. (2003). Introduction and overview. In R. Rajan (Ed.), Sustaining competitiveness in the new global economy: A case study of Singapore (pp. 1-11). Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar. Ranis, G. (2004). The evolution of development thinking: Theory and practice. New Haven, CT: Economic Growth Center, Yale University. Reporters Without Borders. (2005). East Asia and Middle East have the worst press freedom records. Retrieved on September 7, 2005, from http://www.rsf.org/article.php3?id_article=11715 Resnick, L., & Wirt, J. (1996). Changing the workplace: New challenges for education policy and practice. In L. Resnick & J. Wirt (Eds.), Linking school and work: Roles for standards and assessment (pp.1-22). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Rodrik, D. (1996). Understanding economic policy reform. Journal of Economic Literature, 34, 9-41. Romer, P. (1993). Economic growth. In D. Henderson (Ed.), Fortune encyclopedia of economics. New York: Warner Books. Retrieved on July 19, 2005 from http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/EconomicGrowth.html Roschelle, J., Pea, R., Hoadley, C., Gordin, D., & Means, B. (2000). Changing how and what children learn in school with computer-based technologies. The Future of Children, 10(2), 76-101. Rumberger, R. (1987). High school dropouts: A review of issues and evidence. Review of Educational Research, 57, 101-121. Sachs, J. (2004). Statement by Professor Jeffery Sachs. In The role of industrial development in the achievement of the Millennium Development Goals (pp. 44-48). Vienna, Austria: UNIDO. Sachs, J. (2005). The end of poverty: Economic possibilities of our time. New York: Penguin Press. Sandholtz, J., Ringstaff, C., & Dwyer, D. (1997). Teaching with technology: Creating student-centered classrooms. New York: Teachers College Press. Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (1994). Computer support for knowledge-building communities. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 3, 265-384. Schofield, J., & Davidson, A. (2002). Bringing the Internet to school: Lessons from an urban district. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Schwartz, W. (1995). School Dropouts: New Information about an Old Problem. New York: ERIC Clearinghouse on Urban Education. (ERIC386515) Senge, P., Cambron-McCabe, N., Lucas, T., Smith, B., Dutton, J., & Kleiner, A. (2000). Schools that learn. New York: Doubleday. Sergiovanni, T. (1994). Building community in schools. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Shanmugaratnam, T. (2002, July). IT in learning: Preparing for a different future. Speech by the Senior Minister for Trade, Industry, and Education at the iTopia 2002 Conference in Sinapore. Singapore: Ministry of Education. Retrieved on July 19, 2005 from http://www.moe.gov.sg/speeches/2002/sp24072002.htm Shavelson, R., Baxter, G., & Pine, J. (1992). Performance assessment: Political rhetoric and measurement reality. Educational Researcher, 21(4), 22-27. Shepard, L., Hammerness, K., Darling-Hammond, L., & Rust, F. (2005). Assessment. In L. Darling-Hammond & J. Bransford (Eds.), Preparing teachers for a changing world: What teachers should learn and be able to do (pp. 275-326). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Shulman, L. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4-14. Sianesi, B., & Van Reenen, J. (2002). The returns to education: A review of the empirical macro-economic literature. London: Institute for Fiscal Studies. Soros, G. (2002). On globalization. New York: Public Affairs. ICT Policy and Development 155 Stevens, P., & Weale, M. (2003). Education and economic growth. London: National Institute of Economic and Social Research. Stevenson, L., & Lundström, A. (2001). Patterns and trends in entrepreneurship: SME policy and practice in ten economies. Orebro, Sweden: Swedish Foundation for Small Business Research. Stiglitz, J. (1998). Towards a new paradigm for development: Strategies, policies, and processes. Washington, DC: World Bank. Stiglitz, J. (1999). Public policy for a knowledge economy. Washington, DC: World Bank. Stiglitz, J. (2001). From miracle to crisis to recovery: Lessons from four decades of East Asian experience. In J. Stiglitz & S. Yusuf (Eds.), Rethinking the East Asian Miracle (pp. 509-526). Washington, DC: World Bank. Stiglitz, J. (2002). Globalization and its discontents. New York: Norton. Stiglitz, J., & Yusuf, S. (Eds.). (2001). Rethinking the East Asian Miracle. Washington, DC: World Bank. Talbert, J., & McLaughlin, M. (1993). Understanding teaching in context. In D. Cohen, M. McLaughlin, & J. Talbot (Eds.), Teaching for understanding: Challenges for policy and practice (pp. 167-206). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Temple, J. (2001). Growth effects of education and social capital in the OECD countries. OECD Economic Studies, 33, 57-92. Tucker, M. (1996). Skills standards, qualifications systems, and the American workforce. In L. Resnick & J. Wirt (Eds.), Linking school and work: Roles for standards and assessment (pp. 23-52). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. United Nations [UN]. (1997). Resolution adopted by the General Assembly: 52/LII. United Nations Millennium Declaration. New York: UN. United Nations [UN]. (2000). Resolution adopted by the General Assembly: 55/2. United Nations Millennium Declaration. New York: UN. United Nations [UN]. (2002a). Resolution adopted by the General Assembly: 56/116. United Nations Literacy Decade: education for all. New York: UN. United Nations [UN]. (2002b). United Nations Literacy Decade: Education for all. International plan of action: Implementation of General Assembly Resolution 56/116. New York: UN. United Nations Development Program [UNDP]. (2001). Human development report 2001: Making technologies work for human development. New York: UNDP. United Nations Development Program [UNDP]. (2004). Egypt human development report 2004. New York: UNDP. United Nations Development Program [UNDP]. (2005). Human development report 2005: International cooperation at a crossroads: Aid, trade and security in an unequal world. New York: UNDP. United Nations Education, Scientific, and Cultural Organization [UNESCO]. (2002). Open and distance learning: Trends, policy, and strategy considerations. Paris: UNESCO. United Nations Education, Scientific, and Cultural Organization [UNESCO]. (2004). The 2005 Report: Education for all, the quality imperative. Paris: UNESCO United Nations Industrial Development Organization [UNIDO]. (2003a). The role of industrial development in the achievement of the Millennium Development Goals. New York: UNIDO. United Nations Industrial Development Organization [UNIDO]. (2003b). Industrial development report 2002/2003: Competing through innovation and learning. New York: UNIDO. United Nations Industrial Development Organization [UNIDO]. (2004a). Industrial clusters and poverty reduction. New York: UNIDO. United Nations Industrial Development Organization [UNIDO]. (2004b). Inserting local industries into global value chains and global production networks. New York: UNIDO. Vinovskis, M. (1996). An analysis of the concept and uses of systemic educational reform. American Educational Research Journal, 33, 53-85. Wagner, D., & Kozma, R. (2005). New Technologies for Literacy and Adult Education: A Global Perspective. Paris: UNESCO. Wheeler, D. (2003). Egypt: Building an information society for international development. Review of African Political Economy, 98, 627-642. Kozma 156 Williamson, J. (1990). What Washington means by policy reform. In J. Williamson (Ed.), Latin American adjustment: How much has happened? Washington, DC: Institute for International Economics. Retrieved on July 18, 2005 from http://www.iie.com/ publications/papers/paper.cfm?ResearchID=486 Williamson, J. (2000). What should the World Bank think about the Washington Consensus? The World Bank Research Observer, 15, 251-264. Wilson, P. (2000). The dilemma of a more advanced developing country: Conflicting views on the development strategy of Singapore. The Developing Economies, 38, 105-134. Wolf, L., Castro, C., Navarro, J., & Garcia, N. (2002). Television for secondary education: Experience of Mexico and Brazil. In W. Haddad (Ed.), Technologies for education: Potentials, parameters, and prospects (pp. 144-152). Paris: UNESCO. Wolfensohn, J. (1999). A proposal for a comprehensive development framework. Memo to the Board, management, and staff of the World Bank Group. Washington, DC: World Bank. Retrieved on July 19, 2005, from http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/PROJECTS/STRATEGIES/CDF/0,,contentMDK:2007289 0~menuPK:140147~pagePK:139301~piPK:261885~theSitePK:140576,00.html World Bank. (2002a). Arab Republic of Egypt education sector review: Progress and priorities for the future. Washington, DC: World Bank. World Bank. (2002b). Globalization, growth, and poverty. Washington, DC: World Bank. World Bank. (2003). Lifelong learning in the global knowledge economy: Challenges for developing countries. Washington, DC: World Bank. World Bank. (2005). Data and statistics. Retrieved on July 19, 2005 from http:// www.worldbank.org/data/databytopic/databytopic.html World Bank Institute. (2002). Annual report. Washington, DC: World Bank. World Bank Institute. (2003). Annual report. Washington, DC: World Bank. World Bank Institute. (2004). Annual report. Washington, DC: World Bank. World Economic Forum. (2004). Global competitiveness report 2004-2005. Retrieved on September 7, 2005, from http://www.weforum.org/site/homepublic.nsf/Content/Global+Competitiveness+Programme%5CGlobal +Competitiveness+Report Young, A. (1995). Tyranny of numbers: Confronting the statistical realities of the East Asian growth experience. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 110, 641-680. Yusuf, S. (2001). The East Asian Miracle at the millennium. In J. Stiglitz & S. Yusuf (Eds.), Rethinking the East Asian Miracle (pp. 1-54). Washington, DC: World Bank. Author’s Note The author would like to express appreciation for comments on and earlier draft from Horn Mun Cheah, Edmond Gaible, Jeanne Marie Ho, Ellen Mandinach, John Mathieson, Michael Trucano, Donald Weil, and anonymous reviewers. Any shortcomings are those of the author. All correspondence should be addressed to: Robert Kozma 2151 Filbert St. San Francisco, California USA robert.kozm[email protected] Human Technology: An Interdisciplinary Journal on Humans in ICT Environments ISSN 1795-6889 www.humantechnology.jyu.fi