Pressure groups, education policy, and curriculum development in Lebanon : a policy maker’s retrospective and introspective standpoint

Abstract

Societies differ in the ways they engage the process of policy making in the field of education. Indeed, pressure groups, which operate within any society, monitor and influence the education policy-making arena as part of negotiating and engaging the broader politics of power. These groups (be they political, religious, societal, economic, or gender-based) are concerned with the kind of education provided to the country’s citizens. Each group likes to see its ideology present in the school curriculum. Thus, education policy making is influenced by competing claims to knowledge, values, interests, and the manipulation of resources and of the decision-making process. Within this context, education policy remains subject to media and public scrutiny. As a result, policy makers act within a constantly contested terrain, particularly in deeply divided societies in which ethnic-cultural identities, religious conflict, and class stratification come into play in a significant way and the question of a ‘unified’ curriculum emerges as a central yet contested concern. As one of these societies, Lebanon has faced internal strife because of its religious structure which led to four civil wars between 1840 and 1975. The 1975– 1989 war was the most recent and destructive since it claimed the lives of 100,000 people and left state institutions paralyzed and inefficient. Many educators, politicians, and ordinary citizens blamed the education system for being unable to form citizens who believe in their country’s common identity and unity, since a large number of combatants were high school and university students. The members of the Lebanese parliament, who met in Al-Taef, Saudi Arabia, in 1989, signed a peace agreement to stop the fighting and reform the political, social, economic, judicial and education systems. Many measures were taken gradually to reform education by adopting a ‘Plan for an Educational Renaissance’ in 1995, a ‘New Structure of Instruction’ in 1996, and by developing a new curriculum in 1995–1997 which then became the focus of concern for pressure groups keen to assert their interests and agendas. The strife between the secular and religious groups was particularly tense around the issue of religious instruction. Also, the new history curriculum and textbooks, as can well be imagined, became another target for acrimonious and lasting debates, with much pressure being exerted on education decision makers, particularly by a single-issue interest group. It was within this very challenging socio-political context that I was appointed head of the Educational Center for Research and Development (ECRD, or CERD in French), affiliated to the Ministry of Education of Lebanon. The ECRD is in charge of education planning, curriculum development, writing school textbooks, training in-service teachers, carrying out education research and compiling statistics about students, teachers, and schools. The timing was critical since the country was trying to recover from the effects of civil war. Each group used to look at any decision taken by the government with suspicion, wary of any decision that would serve the interests of its opponent/s. Needless to say, this wariness was also present in the field of education, leading various groups to articulate their own perspectives and to promote their own interests and agendas whenever possible. The present chapter focuses on the case of pressure groups operating in Lebanon and their involvement in education policy making. Even though the focus will largely be on development since the Al-Taef Accord, an account of what had taken place during the development of 1946 and 1968 curricula will be covered briefly as well. My aim is to address the following question: How do pressure groups in Lebanon engage with the policy-making process in order to affect education policies and curriculum development within the context of competing sectarian and political agendas and a deeply divided polity? As an educationist, I was involved indirectly in educational policy making in Lebanon for two years, first, in 1996, as member of the Higher Planning Committee at ECRD—a position I left since I was critical of the Committee’s work—and then of the Lebanese University Council, a position I took up in 1997. My direct involvement in educational policy making was between 1999 and 2002, when I was appointed head of ECRD. I have come to experience the pressure exerted by interest groups and bear the consequences of the politics of educational policy making in a direct and personal way. In what follows, I reflect on this experience.