The choice of a policy perspective in writing this paper is justifiable for at least two reasons: discussion will be oriented toward policy decisions; and analysis could draw from a whole array of policy sciences.

Literacy today has indeed come center stage. It has come to be accepted as a fundamental human right, as liberator of the mind from the bondage of dependence, as the portal to most knowledge, and thus as a tool for both the modernization and the democratization of societies. Of course, not everyone accepts all this. While few are against literacy any more, not everyone is fully and totally committed. The centrality of the role of literacy in development is not always understood and literacy sometimes waits while more urgent needs are fulfilled first! It is not realized that there are no first's and second's in social change, that literacy and development have a mutually beneficial relationship, and that without literacy, development indeed limps on one leg (Bhola, 1984, 1990).

Happily, literacy policy influentials have been able to make important gains and to set important goals. The United Nations General Assembly Resolution no. 42/104 of 1987, by declaring 1990 the International Literacy Year (ILY), put a seal of approval on the ideological and theoretical justifications for the role of literacy in development. UNESCO has been named the lead agency to mobilize the world community for universal literacy by the year 2000 (UNESCO, 1987). At the World Conference on Education for All (WCEFA), jointly sponsored by the United Nations Development Program (UNDP), United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF), and the World Bank, in Jomtien, Thailand, 5-9 March 1990, the nations of the world adopted the following planning targets for the year 2000:

This paper addresses the issue of the state of education today in French-speaking Africa, with specific reference to literacy, post-literacy, and their perspectives for the year 2000. While a very pessimistic overall picture is presented in the literature, both by educational researchers and development and funding agencies, new approaches to the matter are emerging. First, from the previous linear relationship of education to other economic, social, and environmental factors, more and more authors now perceive education as an interdependent variable which mutually reinforces other economic, social, and cultural development factors. Education, it is realized, should not be restricted to the achievement of objectives such as employability and isolated from the global evolution of economic sectors (Hugon, 1988; Dave, Ouane, and Sutton, 1989). Hence, a new sort of applied economics of education is needed (Easton, 1989: 440). Linked to this notion, and no less important, is the perception that education should be constructed as a global system which offers combinations of approaches of equal potential value—formal, nonformal and even informal.

Second, the notion of development itself is questioned as well as its impact on education. The call is for humanization of development. The concept of development has long departed from narrow economic growth to include both a more equitable distribution of the wealth generated by and access to the supporting political structures. The failure of development policies in developing countries, and specifically in Africa, has aroused new interest in culture as an essential dimension for social change if not as the central dimension of development (Amin, 1989; Thompson, 1981, UNESCO, 1982).

For decades in many African countries, pragmatism and politics have dictated that the choice of language for literacy and primary education should be the colonial languages—French, English or Portuguese. In some settings, certain African languages of wider communication have been selected, including Swahili in Kenya and Tanzania, and Hausa in Nigeria. However, for the vast majority of African languages, educational materials have never been developed. Millions of African children find their first days at school bewildering as they adjust to not only the strange environment of school but also to a teacher who cannot speak their language.

In August 1989, a UNESCO seminar was convened in Lagos, Nigeria, focusing on the role of languages of minority groups as languages of instruction. This was followed by a consultation on the related challenge to provide grassroots teacher training for mothertongue education. Representatives came from approximately fifteen countries and five continents, with the majority being from within Africa. The stated purpose of the seminar, according to the prospectus, was:

The question, “Which language for literacy?” is often asked in contexts where a number of languages are used in a given community or state (Bhola, 1983; Carron and Bordia, 1985; Fordham, 1985). Although pragmatic reasons for the choice of language—availability of materials and of teachers, and economic considerations—are sometimes adduced, it is generally agreed that the question is above all a political one.

The problem of language choice is acute in many developing countries, particularly in Africa, where a nation-state may be comprised of a large number of linguistically heterogeneous groups (Nigeria, for example, has 413. See Grimes 1988: 295). While the merits and demerits of developing and using such small languages are ardently debated (Fasold, 1984; Pattanayak, 1985; Skuttnabb-Kangas, 1981), it is rare to find studies of particular situations where attempts have been made to develop and use such languages for the purpose of rural development. This paper will present such a study.

Cameroon is a country of 10.5 million people where 238 languages are spoken (Dieu and Renaud, 1983). The bulk of the population (80 percent) live in rural areas where they are engaged in subsistence and cash crop farming (Biya, 1986). National development policy has emphasized the rural areas under the official banner of the “revitalization of village communities”; this policy has been adopted partly to seek to stem the rural exodus to the towns, and partly because of a recognition that Cameroon's main resource in the long term is agriculture.

Addressing the issue of the extent to which the government of a country poor in economic and human resources for development can put into practice pluralist language policies for education. The discussion is limited to policy and practice in post-revolution Ethiopia, drawing on data collected in the mid-1980s (McNab, 1989). It is also limited to the literacy campaigns which, carried out in fifteen languages, have become a regular feature of the education system since their inauguration in 1979. The term literacy campaign as used in this paper includes the initial, remedial, and post-literacy classes which in Ethiopia are the basis of an integrated approach to literacy education.

The People's Democratic Republic of Ethiopia (PDRE) is a developing country of socialist orientation. The population of Ethiopia is about 45 million. It is one of the poorest countries in the world; in 1984, the estimated GNP per capita was around $110 (World Bank, 1987). The population is predominantly (89 percent) rural, with agriculture accounting for about 50 percent of GDP, 90 percent of exports and 85 percent of employment (World Bank, 1987). Agriculture is the country's main potential resource for development but development is hindered by cycles of drought and famine and by the fighting in Northern Ethiopia and previously also in the Ogaden. Trading is well established, and a small modern sector has developed in the urban areas. There are, however, vast distances, rugged terrain, and wide variations in topography which make internal transport and communications difficult and thereby pose major obstacles to administration and economic development.

The history of literacy learning in Mozambique proceeds through a number of sharply contrasting phases, and is particularly interesting in the way that it reveals its dependence on the political and economic strategy being practiced by the government. In each phase, the motivations of the providers and the seekers of access to literacy differ, as do the literacy results, in line with the prevailing relations of power, mode of production, and political situation.

Underlying this paper are two basic understandings about the provision and use of access to adult literacy:

—adult participation in literacy teaching-learning programs is first and foremost a question of motivation; and

—large-scale successes in literacy programs are dependent on factors that raise and sustain that motivation, and therefore, principally on the power, legitimacy, and encouragement of the state (Lind and Johnston, 1986).

The effects of literacy on society seem reasonably clear; at least, it is clear that societies with a high level of literacy are materially better off than those with a low level, and that the presence of widespread literacy skills in a society substantially affects its culture, relationships, power structure, and economy. To an extent this has given rise to the idea that education has the value of material capital and that economic development will take place if (and maybe only if) enough effort is invested in education. A careful look soon shows, however, that one is rather faced with a typical chicken and egg issue. Consequently, heavy investment in the promotion of literacy skills in a society does not automatically guarantee economic development. Nor is it necessarily satisfactory to begin by defining development as synonymous with economic growth.

Over the last few decades, an increasing number of developing countries have embarked upon the organization of nationwide literacy programs. Although the rationale behind those programs varies from country to country, it is generally expected that efforts to increase the literacy levels of adults will have positive consequences for both the learners and the nation as a whole.

It is worth noting, however, that until now empirical evidence which could support these expectations has remained extremely weak. By and large, adult literacy has been a neglected area in terms of data collection and research. In many countries it may even be difficult to find precise information about simple facts such as the number of adults enrolled in literacy classes, the number of instructors, or the number of literacy proficiency certificates which have been delivered. In most cases the illiteracy rate, which is an essential indicator for any plan of action in the field of literacy, is only a crude measure based on self reporting by household heads and on questionable assumptions about the equivalency between a given number of years of primary school attendance and a sufficient proficiency level in reading and writing. Only recently have certain governments started using literacy tests to assess, by direct measurement, the levels of literacy of their population, most often on the basis of a representative sample household survey (for example, Kenya, Nicaragua, and Zimbabwe).

When it comes to the effects of literacy, the lack of appropriate information is even more disturbing. There are several studies which demonstrate the positive effects of a given number of years of primary schooling on farmers’ productivity (Jamison and Lau, 1982).