Essay Writing Servicehttp://StudyHub.vip/A-Capability-Approach-Towards-The-Quali

1. A Capability Approach Towards the Quality of Education
Alternative approach towards the challenges of educational quality after an era of global focus on
access to education
University of Amsterdam | Education, Globalization and International Development
Student: René Vermeulen | UvAnetID 10318232
Supervisor: Prof. Xavier Bonal
# Words: 7.340
Introduction
The Capability Approach has become influential in international development in recent years
(McCowan 2011). With pioneering publications in the 1980s and 1990s by Martha Nussbaum (1997)
and Amartya Sen (2001) the importance of this perspective on development is emphasized recently
by the United Nations. This emphasis on human development goes beyond the previously important
notions of mere economic development. Since 1993 the Human Development Reports [which the
United Nations Development Programme publishes annually] have assessed the quality of life in the
nations of the world using the concept of people's capabilities, or their abilities to do and to be
certain things deemed valuable (Nussbaum 1997: 275). This shift in discourse towards a more social
development perspective is widely embraced and implemented. The initial idea of Amartya Sen
[Development as freedom], has been further developed and has been translated into a utilizable
approach for different sectors. For example, the role education plays in human development goes
beyond a focus on educational inputs and outcomes.
Education has an important role with regard to the Capability Approach, but this role multiple and
complex (Hoffman 2006: 2). Being educated has been described by Sen as a basic capability.
Moreover, the Capability Approach considers development through education to be understood not
only as increasing income or better access to resources, but as the enhance e t of people s
freedoms to do and be what they have reason to value (McCowan 2011: 285). The idea of a person
i the Capa ilit App oa h is o e of ha i g a ide a ge of alued doi gs a d ei gs U te halte
2008: 785). Having access to an education and being knowledgeable allow a person to prosper, in
other words, education functions as a foundation to other capabilities: being well educated is
i po ta t fo the e pa sio of a pe so s othe apa ilities. (Hoffman 2006; Robeyns 2006).

2. Through their prominence in UN organizations, the previously mentioned perspectives have had
significant influence on global educational policy. First, the human capital theory has been, and still
is, a leading discourse in global policies on education. Central to the human capital theory is the idea
that education and improvement of skills increase economic productivity and in that way benefit a
pe so s e o o i alue. “e o d, the ight to edu atio app oa h is ostl asso iated ith the
Education for All [EFA] movement that has come up since 1990. Striving for universal access to
education has been given momentum by global conferences on Education for All in Jomtien [1990]
and Dakar [2000] (McCowan 2011: 509). Within this movement the international community has
committed itself to have all children attending fee-free primary schooling by 2015 (Robeyns 2006:
75). Third, the Capability Approach gained prominence when Amartya Sen won the Nobel Prize in
1998 with his alternative approach to the neo-classical evaluation of human well-being (Walker &
Unterhalter 2007). According to Robeyns (2006), the Capability Approach is no substitute for human
capital approach and human rights approach, but it deepens and broadens the perspective (p. 75). In
sum, a progression is seen between human capital theory, human rights and capabilities, with
capabilities being the preferred framework, drawing on the insights and opportunities presented by
the former two (McCowan 2011: 287).
The Capability Approach towards education has gained prominence, because it looks beyond the
economic value of education and also beyond education as a human right. Seeing education as a
right has enabled a focus on access to school. This has led to a focus on Universal Primary Education
[UPE]: everybody has the right to Free Primary Education [FPE], as formulated in Millennium
Development Goal [MDG] #2 (IOB 2011). Following the global focus on the MDGs, stimulating FPE
has been a choice that many countries have made. Providing FPE has been chosen, because it is part
of the MDGs. In general, the consequences of this implementation have been that enrollment has
improved drastically and children also stay in school (Vermeulen 2012b). The justification on the
basis of education being a human right is important, because already in the Universal Declaration of
Human Rights, drawn up in 1948, the main concepts of the Capability Approach are addressed. The
Universal Declaration of Human Rights reads: Edu atio shall e dire ted to the full de elop e t of
the human personality and to the strengthening of respect for human rights and fundamental
freedo s (UN, 2012). This early notion of the central aspects of the Capability Approach makes the
approach relevant.
Although, the implementation of Free Primary Education policies across countries had positive
outcomes, several challenges are recognized as well. These challenges are, for example, in the case
of Uganda: high level of school dropout, repetition by pupils and large teacher-pupil ratios (IOB 2008;
Ninsiima 2007; & Ssewamala et al. 2011). Following the introduction of FPE in Uganda in 1997,

3. primary school enrollment more than doubled, from 3.1 million in 1996 to 7.5 million in 2007
(Ssewamala et al., 2011). Numbers of teachers and schools increased by 41 percent between 1997
and 2004, while the enrolment increased by 171 percent. This raises concerns of deterioration in the
quality of public primary schools (Nishimura et al. 2008, p. 173). Ssewamela et al. (2011) state that
under FPE the quality is arguably unsatisfactory due to several factors, such as limited instructional
materials (p. 476). According to Deininger (2000) this general decline in the quality of education
signals that the policy needs to be complemented by improvements in quality learning and
accessibility of secondary education, in order to lead to sustained improvements (p. 291).
The aim of this paper is to utilize the Capability Approach towards the quality of education. For this
purpose, the benefits of the model of Brighouse and Unterhalter (Figure 3) towards the evaluation
and measurement of the quality of education are analyzed. Furthermore, the attempt by Tao (2009)
to use the CA to analyze school improvement initiatives will also be analyzed. The rationale behind
this objective is, stated somewhat brusque, that global policy focus on access and enrolment in
education has led to a decline in quality. Furthermore, it is important that education is more than the
Human Capital Theory-idea of mere inputs and outcomes; the context and process of education
s hool as la k o is i po ta t to a al ze a d i p o e the ualit of edu atio .
Capability Approach towards education
Beyond Human Capital Theory
As was mentioned before, the publications by, especially, Martha Nussbaum (1997) and Amartya Sen
(2001) have given prominence to social side of development. The Capability Approach came as an
alternative for the dominant discourses that focused on economic development. This international
focus had been influenced by the ideas of the Human Capital Theory, which are based on
publications in the 1960s by Becker (1975) and Schultz (1993) of the University of Chicago. Their
emphasis lies on the idea that education, and the subsequently improvement of skills, increase
economic productivity and that this benefits a pe so s e o o i alue. But despite these positive
ideas on the importance of education for economic development, there are several flaws recognized
that have to be addressed (Robeyns 2006).
Although, the Human Capital Theory has been functioning as basis for international policy initiatives,
it is seen as not comprehensive and has its shortcomings. Moreover, critique on the Human Capital
Theo s pe spe ti e o edu atio is idesp ead M Co a , ; ‘o e s, ; “e , ; “e ,
2005). In general, the Human Capital Theory is perceived as problematic because it is essentially

4. economistic, fragmentized and exclusively instrumentalistic. As an answer to these flaws, the
Capability Approach is in principle multi-dimensional and comprehensive, and it can therefore
account for the intrinsic and non-economic roles that education plays (Robeyns 2006: 69). Although,
the Capability Approach does not offer specific alternatives for human capital approach, but it
deepens and broadens the perspective. According to Wigley & Akkoyunlu-Wigley (2005) there is a
difference in the value of education from the different perspectives. When the value of education is
surveyed in terms of the capability to achieve valued functionings, instead of accumulation of
resources, it becomes clear that society has a duty to enable each child to complete at least a basic
education, regardless of their relative contributions to economic growth (p. 289).
According to Sen, the Capability Approach should not be seen as an alternative for the Human Capital
Theory. The discourses go well with each other, as long as we do not try to subsume either entirely
ithi the othe “e , . Follo i g “e s a gu e t: e ust go e o d the otio of hu a
capital, after acknowledging its relevance and reach. The broadening that is needed is additional and
u ulati e, rather tha ei g a alter ati e to the hu a apital approa h (Amartya Sen as cited
by Robeyns, 2006: 75). From this statement it becomes clear that the different approaches to
education should not exclude each other. They should be valued for their beneficial points and
should be complementary to each other. The Capability Approach aims at providing a holistic and
comprehensive approach beyond education as a human right and the economic view on education.
Beyond human rights-based approach
Another discourse that has been influential in the debate on the role of education for development is
the human rights-based approach. This approach, based on the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights in 1948, justifies the recent focus on education as a right. The human rights-based approach to
education ensures that education is a fundamental and inalienable human right to which all human
beings are entitled. The possibility for a child to go to school becomes more than an opportunity; it
becomes a legal requirement (McMillan, 2011: 540). But there is more to education then just
providing the opportunity to go to school: human rights in and of themselves do not promote an
agenda for education. The global push for universalism has been met with a tendency towards
universal policies which work towards the achievement of UPE (McMillan 2011: 538).
From a theoretical point of view, Robeyns (2006) acknowledges the advantages of a rights-based
approach over Human Capital Theory, but has critique on the basis of four limitations: for being
overly rhetorical; for overemphasizing the legal aspect; for inducing policy makers to be contented
with a limited interpretation of the right; and for being too government- focused (pp. 76-78). In other
words, implementing the right is enough to content policy makers and forgetting to meet the goal

5. that underlies the right (p. 70). Moreover, Hoffman et al. (2008) add that, according to Amartya Sen,
it is best to see human rights as a set of ethical claims which must not be identified with legislated
legal rights. In order to claim their rights, individuals and communities need to be equipped to know
these rights. This requires competences such as critical thinking and responsibility as central
elements along with agency and empowerment. These competences are related to quality education
that leads to building capability of the individual (p. 2). With these criticisms in mind, it is important
to analyze the benefits of the Capability Approach in addressing the right to education.
Viewing rights as rights to capabilities, protects against the dangers of assuming that the holding of
formal entitlements is sufficient for them to be exercised in practice (McCowan 2011: 292).
A o di g to ‘o e s the ulti ate goal of de elop e t is e pa di g people s apa ilities,
including the capabilities of education: legal rights are an instrument in reaching that goal (p. 82).
Brighouse (2004) argues that it is more illuminating to think of capabilities as the bases of rights
claims: if there is o apa ilit that is ser ed a right, the it is ot a fu da e tal right (p. 80).
Additionally, McCowan (2011) argues that there are three areas in which the Capability Approach can
make a significant contribution in the field of education: first, it can provide a fuller conception of the
realization of the right to education; second, it can direct attention towards the heterogeneity of
learners and third, it can guard against an overly state-facing approach. These points relate to
different aspects of the right to education and thereby they provide insight beyond the rights-based
approach: whether the right has been upheld; whether the constraints on individuals and groups
exercising the right are met and whether the responsibility for the upholding of the right is taken
(McCowan 2011: 292-293).
Capability Approach and education
The link between the Capability Approach and education is potentially strong and mutually
enhancing (Saito 2003: 17). Although, the Capability Approach brought additional insights to the
debate on development through education, up to date, however, it lacks a degree of
operationalization. This is in large part due to the underspecified nature of the capability approach: it
o l outli es hat is i po ta t ega di g e aluati g so ial a a ge e ts a d people s ell-being
and freedom. To apply it to concrete cases, a supplement to the framework with additional social
theo ies elated to the topi is eeded ‘o e s : . Despite the de ate a out “e s Capability
Approach with substantial attention from philosophers, ethicists, economists and other social
scientists, it needs more critical examination from an educational perspective (Saito 2003). According
to Unterhalter, Vaughan and Walker (2007), this research from educational perspective has been
ongoing recently. They state that the Capability Approach to education is very much a developing

6. area of theory and practice: many themes are still open to debate because it has only been in the last
few years that a number of education researchers have turned to the capability approach (p. 1).
Moreover, Tao (2009) argues that as a result of its theoretical and philosophical attractiveness, more
scholars have begun to investigate its application and operationalization within the realm of
education (p. 5-6).
An extensive overview of the relationship between education and the Capability Approach is
provided by Elaine Unterhalter (2009). Several key points of this relationship are worked out in her
book chapter (pp. 207-217). Among these key points, the role of education for achieving
development is seen from the Capability Approach as fulfilling three roles: it is instrumental,
empowering and redistributive. First, education fulfills an instrumental social role: for example,
literacy fosters public debate and dialogue about social and political arrangements. Education also
has an instrumental process role in facilitating capacity to participate in decision-making processes.
Finally, it has an empowering and distributive role in providing the ability of disadvantaged,
marginalized and excluded groups to organize politically since, without education, these groups
would be unable to gain access to centers of power and make a case for redistribution to begin with.
Moreover, applying the capability approach to education puts the emphasis on capabilities and not
on related functionings or outcomes of being educated. Overall, education has an interpersonal
impact, because it enables people to use the benefits of education to help others as well as
themselves and can therefore contribute to democratic freedoms and the overall good of society as a
whole (Unterhalter 2009: 207-213).
Another important element of the Capability Approach is its perspective on an individual level. In
o t ast to the pe spe ti e of the U i e sal P i a Edu atio p og a , hi h does t look at
individual development but mainly at providing access to education, it is concerned with the
capabilities of each and every individual. The ideas of Sen integrate securing and expanding
intrapersonal and interpersonal freedoms: individuals and their opportunities should not be viewed
in isolated terms (Walker 2006: 166). Besides the emphasis on individual capabilities and
functionings, the concept of agency freedom is also central to the Capability Approach in addressing
education. This concept is explained as: so eo e ho acts and brings about change, and whose
achievements are to be judged in terms of her own values and objectives, whether or not we assess
the i ter s of so e e ter al riteria as ell (Amartya Sen, cited in Walker 2006: 165). The
concept of agency is the e plai ed as a pe so s a ilit to pu sue the goals that he alues a d that
are important for the life he wishes to lead. Therefore, education is understood here to be a
capability in itself (Walker 2006: 165).

7. As was stated rather bluntly in the introduction, it is assumed that the dramatic increase in
enrolment has put pressure on the quality of education. These challenges for the quality of education
bring a new debate to the fore on how the quality of education is determined. Mostly, according to
Spoelder (2009), there is a focus on input or outcomes of education and the process of learning is
ignored. The Capability Approach to quality education focuses on student learning, rather than mere
attendance (Reidy 2008: 11-12). Therefore, the Capability Approach is important to study the
challenges of implementation of UPE/FPE policies and the impact that has had on the quality of
education.
Problems with measuring quality
After establishing the main benefits of the Capability Approach towards the debate on education and
development in more general respect, now the aim of this paper shifts towards the way in which the
Capability Approach can improve the challenges in maintaining a quality education. According to
Stephens (2003), defining the concept of quality is like tr i g to defi e otherhood it is learl a
good thi g ut elusi e a d likel to e depe de t o the perspe ti e of the perso atte pti g the
defi itio (p. 4). For example, for parents may well relate to the learning outcomes; for the school
manager or inspector quality may well embrace improved general standards of reading, or
handwriting, or mathematics; for the classroom teacher a definition of quality linking closely to
improved conditions of service. However, what is clear, according to Stephens (2003), is that there is
a broad consensus in the international community on two points. First, challenges to quality have
gone hand-in-hand with the rapid expansion of primary school systems in many parts of the world.
Second, girls and boys in the same classroom do not typically receive the same education (p. 3-4).
Regarding the link between increased enrollment and pressure on quality, it is important to look at
the way FPE is implemented. For example, in Malawi FPE was implemented at once, which caused a
lot of problems. Contrastingly, Ghana did it more gradually and encountered lesser problems. From
an interview with an educational expert, this argumentation is worked out: A ou tr a ot ha dle
the increase in enrollment, this leads to a decrease in quality. Although, in the case of Zambia the
quality has stayed the same. This measurement of quality is an important aspect which can be
addressed by the Capa ilit Approa h, e ause this is o ased o the tests the hildre do.
(Vermeulen 2012b, see also Spoelder 2009). Therefore, it is important to analyze the situation, which
has arisen after implementing FPE, on the basis of the Capability Approach. The Capability Approach
takes the process and the context of the situation into account. It examines the factors that constrain
the people in their freedoms, or why do they have the freedom to develop their functioning. In other

8. words, implementation of FPE leads to several problems with regards to equity and quality. These
problems can be analyzed with the Capability Approach and that can lead to a new focus on the
policy level. However, it is important to keep in mind that a further concretization of the Capability
Approach is still in progress (Robeyns, 2006; Unterhalter, Vaughan & Walker, 2007).
Regarding the quality of learning, Yates (2007) discusses several macro theories of education and
development, some of which have already been discussed. These theories have emerged to explain
relationships between education systems and national development. He has summarized the leading
development discourses into one schema (Table 1).
Figure 1: Development discourses and quality learning
Source: Yates 2007: 3.
F o Ta le it a e see de i ed that si e the s a u e of a o theo ies e e ged to
explain relationships between education and development. Among these theories are the Human
Capital Theory (including the basic needs approach), education for liberation (associated with
decolonization and the reduction of structural inequality) and education for the fulfillment of human
rights (p. 2). The 2005 UNESCO Global Monitoring Report shows that the notion of quality of
education is divided into three traditions: behaviorist approach, humanist approach and critical
approaches (UNESCO 2004: 32-34). The learning theories behind these approaches have their origins
in different value and epistemological foundations: Behaviourism, Humanism, and Criticality. These
learning theories can be thought of as demonstrating correspondence to alternative education and
development discourses. For example, libertarian/utilitarian Human Capital Theory could be seen to
have an affinity with behaviorism and what has been termed learning as consequences; while the
liberal humanist perspective might be thought as having some correspondence a human rights
perspective and learning as constructions, while the Post-marxist structuralist theories [education for
liberation], may claim more affinity with the critical approach learning as connections (Yates 2007).

9. According to Yates (2007), learning as connections can also be linked more recently to the
development of cultural and social capital (p. 3).
Furthermore, Yates (2007) argues that perhaps we can now detect a kind of (post)post-modern
synthesis emerging which is attempting to bring all these pre-i passe theories together (p. 3). This
merging of theories is seen by Yates as joining together around the ideas of Cosmopolitan theorists
like Amartya Sen (2001) and Martha Nussbaum (1997) under the banner of Development as Freedom
as measured in the evaluative sphere by the Capability Approach (Yates 2007: 2). Despite this
overview, it is argued that no general theory as to what determines the quality of education has been
validated by empirical research UNESCO (2004: 228)
Critique on the influence of the leading discourses is also found in the work of Leon Tikly and
Angelina Barret (Tikly 2011; Tikly and Barrett 2007; 2010). Their papers set out a critical framework
for conceptualizing the relationship between the quality of education experienced by disadvantaged
learners in low income countries and the concepts of social justice and Capability Approach. In
elaborating the framework, their papers draw upon key findings from a five year research
programme on education quality; EdQual (Tikly and Barrett, 2010). They especially have critique on
the influence and perceptions of quality education from Human Capital Theory and human rights-
based approach. Summing up, their main argument is that a social justice approach can provide a
new way of thinking about education quality. It can provide an alternative rationale for education
ooted i i di idual f eedo s a d edu atio s ole i foste i g apa ilities that e o passes, ut
also stretches and challenges, human capital and rights approaches (Tikly and Barrett 2010: 19).
According to the influential paper on the quality imperative of the Education for All [EFA] program by
Alexander (2008), the EFA debate has, since the 1990 Jomtien World Declaration on Education for
All, witnessed four broad shifts of focus at international level:
Four broad shifts of focus after 1990:
1. From a view that primary education is no more than a filter for secondary, and that the fate
of the educationally unsuccessful majority matters less than the prospects for those who
make the grade, to a recognition that universalizing primary education benefits the nation as
well as the individual;
2. From a preoccupation with school access, enrolment and retention - the prerequisite of EFA -
to a concern for educational outcomes and quality; or from getting children into school to
addressing what they learn and how;

10. 3. From treating equity and quality as separate to recognizing that they are sides of the same
coin, in that education for all cannot reasonably mean quality for only some;
4. From the assumption that it is sufficient to define quality via a handful of mainly proxy
indicators to a dawning recognition that we need to engage much more directly with what
lies at the core of the educational endeavor, that is to say, with pedagogy.
Source: Alexander 2008: 1
According to Alexander (2008), the first three are now part of mainstream EFA discourse, even
though there is an inevitable time-lag between international commitment, national policy,
professional culture and everyday practice. The time-lag increases when the developments are
moving into the final shift. Moreover, setting up infrastructures for universalizing basic education is
one thing; universalizing genuine belief in a pattern of basic education which is well conceived in its
own terms, regardless of what follows it, is quite another. In general, the shift has taken place from
an almost exclusive preoccupation with access, enrolment and retention, to a greater interest first in
outcomes and more recently in quality. This shift is also characterized as a change in focus from
MDG#2, with a focus on UPE; towards target six of EFA, focusing on improving all aspects of the
quality of education, and ensuring excellence of all so that recognized and measurable learning
outcomes are achieved by all. In the EFA goal, quality is at the heart of education, and this should
satisfy basic learning needs and enrich the lives of learners and their overall experience of living
(Alexander 2008: 6).
Contrastingly, ega di g ualit , Ale a de recognizes the start of an acceptance that quality
cannot be defined by reference to inputs and outcomes alone; the pedagogical process must be
engaged with as well to establish the quality of education (p. 39). He states that there is little
o se sus o hat ualit a tuall e tails, espe iall o i g f o the o ditio s for quality
(infrastructure, resources, teacher supply and of course access, enrolment and retention) to the
pedagogy through which educational quality is most directly mediated (p. 1). A general obsession
with quantifying and comparing the quality of education are also important challenges with regards
to ag ee e t upo ualit . Mo eo e , access and enrolment can be seen as subject to the close
scrutiny, and outcomes, i.e. test scores, may be extensively created and compared across time and
space. This is not the case for pedagogy [i.e. the process of learning], this remains territory which is
either cautiously avoided as too complex or is incautiously blundered into as apparently
unproblematic (Alexander 2008: 1-2). Furthermore, it is stated that the debate about the quality of
education has been dominated by the people who work in the field of policy, accountability and

11. funding rather than in the arena of practice. Therefore, the tendency is that quality of education is
understood as how it can be measured, not as what it actually is.
The indicators of education quality that are most commonly used by governments and international
agencies, including completion and survival rates and scores in standardized tests, often lead to a
narrow view of quality that does not capture the range of possible outcomes that may be required by
learners in the global era or an indication of the underlying processes (Tikly 2011: 3). Quality
education is understood from UNESCO through the model as depicted in Figure 2. This broader
holistic view on quality education embedded in a political, cultural and economical context is taken
up by UNICEF. This quality framework consists of five characteristics: learners, environments,
content, processes and outcomes. The model in Figure 2 is proposed by UNESCO in the Global
Monitoring Report of 2005 (UNESCO 2004). Furthermore, it identifies several levels of context
including the global (e.g. globalization, aid strategies); national (e.g. national governance; public
expectations); local/community (e.g. economic and labor market conditions in the community); and
family/household (e.g. time available for schooling and homework, parental support).
Figure 2: UNESCO framework to understand educational quality
Source: Tikly and Barrett 2007: 4

12. According to Tao (2009) a main dilemma that confronts education planners in developing countries is
the difficult task of improving schools in an effort to ensure that they are of a quality standard. Part
of this dile a is ooted i the te i olog itself as s hool ualit has p o en to be a term with a
very understandable connotation, has it has a much more vague definition. School quality is often
defined and conceptualized with a strong epistemological and methodological shadow of its
p ede esso ; s hool effe ti e ess . The effe ti e ess pa adig was attractive to education
planners and policy, because it frames education as consisting of inputs, and when these inputs are
combined correctly, this results in greater effectiveness. However, the effectiveness approach is seen
as insensitive to culture, context, belief systems and social structures within schools, which affect
how and whether inputs are actually used. These problems can be overcome through emphasizing
quality of education as a process (Tao 2009). Seeing education as a process, the ualit of a s hool is
not judged on inputs or outcomes represented by examination scores, but rather on the processes
that affect students and their ability to learn. Additionally, Tao (2009) suggests the use of a Capability
Approach to analyze quality as a process and to present theoretical and practical applications of CA
that reframe current conceptions of school quality and procedures of how to improve it.
Capability Approach towards quality education
After having established some of the critique on the current perception on the quality of education,
it is time to shift the focus towards the role the Capability Approach can play in analyzing, monitoring
and evaluating the quality of education. According to Robeyns (2005), the Capability Approach can be
used as a descriptive tool to explain behavior that might appear irrational according to traditional
economic analysis, or revealing layers of complexities that a quantitative analysis can rarely capture
(Robeyns 2005: 194). Therefore, the Capability Approach can achieve this by taking into
consideration conversion factors [such as personal skills, social norms and logistics], which help to
la if e te uati g i u sta es that a affe t a pe so s a ilit to a hie e e tai fu tio ings
(Robeyns 2005). In their attempt to extend the bounds of the current debate, Tikly and Barrett
(2010) state that one of the most important needs is the need to develop the informational basis on
which education quality is understood. Therefore, the challenge is not only to define what different
capabilities might look like at different levels of the system, but also how they can be measured and
how the success of education systems in developing these capabilities can be evaluated. They further
state that a focus on capabilities can assist in thinking through what it might mean to be educated in
the global era and how this relates to notions of development. This redefines looking at quality
education as developing capabilities which society and individuals have reason to value (Tikly and
Barrett 2010: 12).

13. Additionally, Tao (2009) argues that this is particularly important when analyzing specific situations
as it allows for deeper levels of understanding. By acknowledging conversion factors, CA takes into
a ou t the oade so ial a d i stitutio al o te t that affe ts a pe so s apa ilit set. This
provides a situational analysis that can more clearly guide subsequent policy and action (Tao 2009: 6-
7). Tao (2009), furthermore, suggests a shift i the e ds [e.g. student achievements and test scores]
of attempts to improve school quality, to the improved well-being of the teachers and students; just
as “e shifted the e ds of hu a de elop e t f o e o o i g o th to hu a well-being (p. 5).
This doesn t ea that stude t a hie e e t a d test s o es a e ot i po ta t, ut CA e pa ded
evaluations of poverty by moving beyond previous [economic] indicators, towards broader
dimensions of health, knowledge and standard of living through increasing attention for the Human
Development Index (Tao 2009).
A more concrete example of applying the Capability Approach towards education has been
undertaken by Brighouse and Unterhalter (2010). They argue that the Capability Approach as
developed by Amartya Sen and others, provides policymakers with a different framework to assist in
evaluating and assessing individual well-being and to help designing policies to promote well-being in
the context of a social justice project like Education For All. The Capability Approach provides a way
to conceptualize and evaluate both individual and social well-being, poverty and inequality (Yates
2007: 10). With the proposition of the model by Brighouse and Unterhalter (Figure 1), they want to
find an account of educational opportunities that will adequately guide practice. They state that
education has three fields that intersect with the terrain of freedom: the instrumental value of
education, the intrinsic value of education and the positional value of education (Brighouse and
Unterhalter 2010).
Figure 3: Model by Brighouse and Unterhalter to capture the different values of education.

14. Source: Brighouse & Unterhalter, 2010: 208.
Central i the odel of B ighouse a d U te halte is the Capa ilit App oa hes o e ith ell-
being and agency freedoms. These freedoms relate to the social conditions that secure instrumental,
intrinsic and positional values through education. The model emphasizes the processes of change
over a cycle that considers children growing up towards agency freedoms (Brighouse & Unterhalter
2010: 210-211). However, they argue that separated approaches were not adequate in guiding
policymakers in deciding what the content and distribution of educational opportunities should be.
Their model is better suited for this task, but it is still somewhat sketchy (p. 213).
Another practical implementation of the Capability Approach has been undertaken by Tao (2009).
She argues that its relevance to school improvement interventions is three-fold. First, CA can be used
as a tool for descriptive situational analysis in order to examine and evaluate current processes in
schools. Second, CA can be operationalized as a framework for improvement by utilizing
participatory measures to identify capabilities to be subsequently expanded. Third, CA can be used as
a measurement device to later monitor and compare how well different schools are faring in their
overall expansion of capabilities. Furthermore, Tao (2009) suggests the use of a School Development
Index [SDI], in line with previous implementation of CA into the Human Development Index, to
further implement and concretize the CA towards the quality of education. The proposition to draw

15. up a list of capabilities, thus to quantify the CA, is subject to another extensive debate between
leading scholars, which is left aside in this paper (Nussbaum 2000; Sen 2005; Robeyns 2005).
Finalizing, it is stated that the CA functions as an evaluative tool to execute a situational analysis. As a
comprehensive and multidimensional model, the Capability Approach offers new potential to
measure educational quality. Unlike other quality education measurements, the Capability Approach
takes account of the contextual constraints to a quality education system from a personal, social, and
environmental level. For this purpose, the ideas of Yates o C ualit lea i g, and the
conversion factors that transfer a good into individual freedom to function (Robeyns 2005 and Tao
2009), could be applied to the Brighouse and Unterhalter (2010) values of education and provide
insight in capabilities to develop a quality educational measurement which is grounded in the
contextual socio-economic situation of different educational situations (Spoelder 2009).
Conclusion
This paper set out to determine the usability of the Capability Approach towards measuring and
improving the quality of education. It started with a broad exploration of the Capability Approach
and progressed towards the practical benefits of the model proposed by Brighouse and Unterhalter
(2010) as depicted in Figure 3, and the utilization as School Development Index by Tao (2009). In
more detail, the aim was to analyze the benefits of the model towards the evaluation and
measurement of the quality of education. Leading rationale behind the arguments in this paper was
based on the assumption that a global policy focus on access and enrolment in education has
eventually led to a decline in quality (Stephens 2003). Also, it was assumed that education should be
seen as more than the Human Capital Theory-idea of mere inputs and outcomes; the context and
process of education is important to analyze and improve the quality of education (Tao, 2009).
In general, it can be stated that the Capability Approach did encounter several challenges in its
process to become a usable and practical approach. This is in large part due to the underspecified
nature of the capability approach: it only outlines what is important regarding evaluating social
a a ge e ts a d people s ell-being and freedom. To apply it to concrete cases, a supplement to
the framework with additional social theories related to the topic is needed (Robeyns 2006: 80).
Additionally, the lack of operationalization had to do with an ongoing debate on the nature of the
approach, as Sen argues that a list of capabilities is not feasible (See e.g. Nussbaum 2000 and Sen
2005). The application of the CA by Tao (2009) offers insights in the possibilities there are to utilize it
in practice to analyze and improve the quality of education. This has been one of the few attempts to
translate the CA into a tool for evaluating and monitoring the quality of education.

16. Utilization of the approach has also been argued by Brighouse and Unterhalter (2003). Their model
(Figure 3) offers a perspective which combines the concepts of the different approaches: the
economic value of the human capital approach, the individual aspect of the human rights approach
and the general context is added from the Capability Approach. This model offers an evaluation tool
to study a situation in its wider context and focuses on the process of development. In other words,
from the interview it became clear that this model gives insight in the black box between inputs and
outputs. These findings are in line with McCowan (2011), as he states that the approaches should not
exclude each other, but a progression is seen with the Capability Approach as the preferred
framework.
The results of this study indicate that the Capability Approach can certainly be used as a monitoring
and evaluation tool, but for the approach to be used as a policy planning tool it needs further
investigation and generalization. This is in line with the opinion of Brighouse and Unterhalter (2010):
in its current state, the approach is not adequate to the task of guiding policymakers in educational
opportunities. The model of Brighouse and Unterhalter is a first step towards this goal, but this needs
further development and research. Again, the work by Tao (2009) has been an important
development, but as she also concludes: there is still work to be done.
Concluding, the dominant discourses on educational development have been criticized for being not
comprehensive. The CA provides a more holistic view on education and development. Furthermore,
the challenges of quality after implementation of UPE/FPE policies has increased enrollment, but has
put pressure on the quality of education. Trying to find an answer to these problems, the CA can
function as a monitoring and a planning tool for educational development. The CA offers insight into
the context and process of education and can be developed into a quality educational measurement
grounded in the context of the different educational situations. But, for the CA to be widely used in
this way, it will take time to be fully accepted and to be taken up by global, national and local policy
makers.

17. References
Alexander, R. (2008), Education For All, The Quality Imperative and the Problem of Pedagogy. CREATE
PATHWAYS TO ACCESS Research Monograph No 20.
Becker, G.S. (1975), Human Capital: A Theoretical and Empirical Analysis with Special Reference to
Education (2nd ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Brighouse, H. (2004), Justice. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Brighouse, H. and E. Unterhalter (2010), 'Education for Primary Goods or for Capabilities?'. In: H.
Brighouse and I. Robeyns (eds), Measuring Justice. Primary Goods and Capabilities.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Bryman, A. (2006), Social Research Methods. Third
Edition. Oxford University Press.
Deininger, K. (2000), Does cost of schooling affect enrollment by the poor? Universal primary
education in Uganda. Economics of Education Review. Vol. 22, pp. 291–305.
Hoffman, A. M. (2006), The Capability Approach and educational policies and strategies: effective life
skills education for sustainable development, Paris: Agence Française du Dévelopement
(AFD).
Hoffmann, A.M., K. Radja & P. Bakhshi (2008). Education and Capabilities
Approach: Life Skills Education as A Bridge to Human Capabilities.
IOB (2008), Primary Education in Uganda. IOB Evaluation, no. 353. Ministry of Foreign Affairs of The
Netherlands, The Hague.
IOB (2011), Education matters: Policy review of the Dutch contribution to basic education 1999–
2009. IOB Evaluation, no. 353. Ministry of Foreign Affairs of The Netherlands, The Hague.
McCowan, T. (2011), Human rights, capabilities and the normative basis of 'Education for All'. Theory
and Research in Education. Vol. 9, No. 3, pp. 283-298.
M Milla , L. K., , What s i a ight? Two variations for interpreting the right to education.
International Review of Education. International Review of Education. Vol. 56, no. 5-6, pp.
531-545.
Ni sii a, A. , I estigati g the ole of esou es i e ha i g o e s age , f eedom and
e po e e t? Uga da s E pe ie e. Hu a De elop e t a d Capa ilit Asso iatio .
Conference Paper.

18. Nishimura, M., T. Yamano & Y. Sasaoka (2008), Impacts of the universal primary education policy on
educational attainment and private costs in rural Uganda. International Journal of
Educational Development. Vol. 28, pp. 161–175.
Nussbaum, M. C. (1997), Capabilities and Human Rights. Fordham Law Rev. Vol. 66, No. 2, pp. 273-
300.
Nussbaum, Martha C. (2000), Women and Human Development: The Capabilities Approach
(Cambridge University Press, Cambridge).
Robeyns, I. (2005), The Capability Approach: A Theoretical Survey. Journal of Human Development
Vol. 6.1, pp. 93-114.
Robeyns, I. (2006), Three models of education: rights, capabilities and human capital. Theory and
Research in Education. Vol. 4, No. 1, pp. 69-84.
“aito, M. , A a t a “e s Capa ilit App oa h to Edu atio : A C iti al E plo atio . Jou al of
Philosophy of Education, Vol. 37, No. 1, 2003, pp. 17-33.
Schultz, T.W. (1993). The economic importance of human capital in modernization. Education
Economics, 1(1), 13-19.
Sen, A. (2001), Development as freedom. Oxford: University Press.
Sen, A. (2005), Human Rights and Capabilities. Journal of Human Development. Vol. 6, No. 2, July
2005, pp. 151-166.
Spoelder, M.W. (2009), The Conceptualization of Quality Education in Zambia. Dissertation MA
Education & International Development. Institute of Education, University of London
Spoelder, M.W. (2010), The Conceptualization of Quality Education in Zambia. Dissertation Summary
Paper. MA Education and International Development. Institute of Education, University of
London.
Ssewamala, F. M. et al. (2011), Strengthening Universal Primary Education in Uganda: The potential
role of an asset-based development policy. International Journal of Educational
Development. Vol. 31, pp. 472–477.
Stephens, D. (2003), Quality of basic education. Background paper prepared for the Education for All
Global Monitoring Report 2003/4. Gender and Education for All: The Leap to Equality.

19. Tao, S. (2009), Appluing the Capability Approach to School Improvement Internventions in Tanzania.
EdQual Working Paper Quality No. 11.
Tikl , L. , To a ds a f a e o k fo esea hi g the ualit of edu atio i lo ‐i o e
countries. Comparative Education Vol. 47, No. 1, pp. 1-23
Tikly, L and A. M. Barrett (2007), Education Quality – Research Priorities and Approaches in the
Global Era. EdQual Working Paper No. 10.
Tikly, L. and A. M. Barrett (2010), Social Justice, Capabilities and the Qquality of Education in Low
Income Countries. International Journal of Educational Development 31, pp. 3–14.
UN (2012), The Universal Declaration of Human Rights. [online]. Available at: <
http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/>. Cited on 08-04-2012.
UNESCO (2004), Education for All: the Quality Imperative, EFA Global Monitoring Report, Paris,
UNESCO
Unterhalter, E. (2008), Social Justice, Development Theory and the Question of Education. Chapter
50. In: R. Cowen and A. M. Kazamias (eds.), International Handbook of Comparative
Education, pp. 771–790.
Unterhalter, E. (2009), Education. Chapter 9. In: Deneulin & Shahani, 2009 [Eds] An Introduction to
the Human Development and Capability Approach. Freedom and Agency. Human
Development and Capability Association (HDCA).
Unterhalter, E., R. Vaughan & M. Walker (2007), The Capability Approach and Education. Human
Development and Capability Association (HDCA) Prospero 2007.
Vermeulen, R. (2012a not published), The importance of basic education for development: analysis
of the representation of Human Capital Theory, human rights-based approach and Capability
Approach in Dutch policy for educational development cooperation. University of Utrecht.
Research Master Human Geography: final paper for course Research Frontiers.
Vermeulen, R. (2012b not published) The Capability Approach towards education: The possible use of
a holistic approach as policy tool for education in Uganda. University of Utrecht. Research
Master Human Geography: final paper for course Writing for Scientific Publication.
Walker, M. (2006), Towards a capability-based theory of social justice for education policy-making.
Journal of Education Policy, Vol. 21, No. 2, pp. 163-185.

20. Walker, M. and Unterhalter, E. (eds) (2007), Amartya Sen's capability approach and social justice in
education. New York: Palgrave Macmillan
Wigley, S. & A. Akkoyunlu-Wigley (2006), Human Capabilities versus Human Capital: Gauging the
Value of Education in Developing Countries. Social Indicators Research. Vol. 78, pp. 287–304
Yates, C. (2007), Teacher education policy: International development discourses and the
development of teacher education. Paper prepared for the Teacher Policy Forum for Sub-
Saharan Africa 6-9 November 2007, UNESCO Paris.