2010 Annual Report: Education - PartnershipsInAction

AGA KHAN FOUNDATION U.S.A.
ANNUAL REPORT 2010
A N A G E N C Y O F T H E A G A K H A N D E V E L O P M E N T N E T W O R K

In the Osh Oblast of the Kyrgyz Republic,
AKF seeks to improve early childhood development
by establishing a network of
kindergartens (both central and satellite for
the more remote villages) supported by
teacher training and relevant learning
materials.

Dear friends,
As another year ends, we reflect on the accomplishments of 2010 and look forward to progress
in the future. Last year, we acquired almost $18 million in new grant funding and raised $7.8
million at our annual fundraisers held throughout the US. With the total $25 million, we were
able to improve the lives of millions of men, women and children in Africa and Asia. Pregnant
mothers in Pakistan now have access to midwives and inexpensive healthcare; drought-ridden
farmers in Kenya are growing more crops and marketing them more efficiently; and girls in
Afghanistan are now receiving the education they deserve.
Aziz Valliani
Chairman
National Committee
As established by His Highness the Aga Khan many years ago, the Aga Khan Foundation is
unwavering in its commitment to combat illiteracy, ill health and poverty. In partnership with
other Aga Khan Development Network (AKDN) agencies, the Foundation pursues this mission
with confidence. The AKDN is rooted in the developing world with a history, permanency and
sustainability that few others are able to match.
In the vast portfolio of development work and community needs, nothing is more important to
the long-term sustainability and health of a community than ensuring access to education – the
focus of this year’s annual report. We all know that education improves livelihoods and builds
achievement all over the world, but there is increasing recognition of education as a much
greater and more integrated tool. As we continue this quest for a better and safer world, we have
found that education generates good citizenship, promoting greater tolerance and creating
pluralism in human societies. Education has become, in essence, a foundation for peace.
Dr. Mirza Jahani
Chief Executive Officer
We have learned over the years not to become frightened by the complexities of the development
process but to embrace the challenges and the multiple inputs required. In this report, we
invite you to stretch your thinking, offer feedback and reflect on the challenges faced every day
by the work of the Foundation. We have changed the format of our report to have one main
‘thought’ piece, addressing a central development issue: how a child transitions from home to
preschool to primary school and onwards. What are the challenges presented to the child, the
educators, the family and the community What are the critical factors that support this
transition especially in the early formative years What are the policy implications What is your
own experience with your child This new approach, with articles from recognized leaders in
the field, will become a regular feature of our annual report, complementing our usual annual
progress update. This year, we are pleased to have contributions from Robert Myers and Dr.
Sharon Lynn Kagan, both known experts in childhood education.
No message would be complete without noting our most heartfelt gratitude to the huge numbers
of individual, corporate and institutional supporters of Aga Khan Foundation U.S.A. as well as
our volunteers whose commitment stands as a backbone for many of our outreach activities.
Our current portfolio remains at a stable $65 million and is now set to grow in 2011 and
beyond. This would not be possible without your generosity. Thank you.

O v e r v i e w
Aga Khan Development Network
Founded and guided by His Highness the Aga Khan, the Aga Khan
Development Network (AKDN) brings together a number of international
development agencies, institutions and programs that work primarily in the
poorest parts of South and Central Asia, Africa and the Middle East. All AKDN
agencies conduct their programs without regard to faith, origin or gender.
AKDN consists of the following agencies:
The Aga Khan Foundation (AKF) is a non-denominational, international
development agency established in 1967 by His Highness the Aga Khan. Its
mission is to develop and promote creative solutions to problems that impede
social development, primarily in Asia and East Africa. Created as a private,
non-profit foundation under Swiss law, it has branches and independent
affiliates in 20 countries. Aga Khan Foundation U.S.A. was established in
1981 and is based in Washington, DC.
The Aga Khan Agency for Microfinance (AKAM) works to expand access
for the poor to a wider range of financial services, including micro-insurance,
small housing loans, savings, education and health accounts. Its programs
range from village lending cooperatives to self-standing microfinance banks in
South and Central Asia, Africa and the Middle East.
Aga Khan Education Services (AKES) aims to diminish obstacles to
educational access, quality and achievement. It operates more than 300
schools and advanced educational programs at the preschool, primary,
secondary and higher secondary levels in Bangladesh, India, Kenya, Kyrgyz
Republic, Pakistan, Tajikistan, Tanzania and Uganda. It emphasizes studentcentered
teaching methods, field-based teacher training and school
improvement.
Top: AKDN has worked in partnership with
Afghan communities since 2002.
Middle: The First MicroFinanceBank Pakistan,
an institution of Aga Khan Agency for Microfinance,
offers credit, savings, life insurance services
and low cost funds-transfer services as a
means to alleviate poverty.
Bottom: Over 2.5 million people have benefited
directly from the AKF’s rural support
programs worldwide in over 8,400 village
organizations.
Aga Khan Health Services (AKHS) provides primary and curative health
care in Afghanistan, India, Kenya, Pakistan, Tajikistan and Tanzania in over
200 health centers, dispensaries, hospitals, diagnostic centers and community
health outlets. Annually, AKHS provides primary health care to 1.8 million
beneficiaries and handles 1.5 million patient visits. AKHS also works with
governments and other institutions to improve national health systems.
Aga Khan Planning and Building Services (AKPBS) assists communities with
village planning, natural hazard mitigation, environmental sanitation, water supply
systems and improved design and construction of both housing and public
buildings. It provides material and technical expertise, training and construction
management services to rural and urban areas.

The Aga Khan Trust for Culture (AKTC) encompasses the triennial Aga Khan
Award for Architecture; the Historic Cities Program, which undertakes
conservation and rehabilitation in ways that act as catalysts for development;
the Music Initiative, which preserves and promotes the traditional music of Central
Asia, Middle East, North Africa and South Asia; ArchNet.org, an online archive
of materials on architecture and related issues; the Aga Khan Program for Islamic
Architecture, which is based at Harvard University and Massachusetts Institute
of Technology; and the Museums Project, which is creating museums in Toronto
and Cairo.
The Aga Khan University (AKU) is a major center for education, training
and research. Chartered as Pakistan’s first private international university in
1983, it has teaching sites in Afghanistan, Kenya, Pakistan, Syria, Tanzania,
Uganda and the United Kingdom. Following the establishment of the Faculty
of Health Sciences, the Institute for Educational Development and the Institute
for the Study of Muslim Civilisations, AKU is moving towards becoming a
comprehensive university with a Faculty of Arts and Sciences in Karachi.
The University of Central Asia (UCA), chartered in 2000, is located on
three campuses: Khorog, Tajikistan; Tekeli, Kazakhstan; and Naryn, Kyrgyz
Republic. UCA’s mission is to foster economic and social development in the
mountain regions of Central Asia. It will offer Master of Arts degrees in
mountain development; a Bachelor of Arts program based on the liberal arts
and sciences; and non-degree continuing education courses.
The Aga Khan Fund for Economic Development (AKFED) is the only forprofit
agency in the Network. Often acting in collaboration with local and
international partners, the Fund takes bold but calculated steps to invest in
fragile and complex settings. AKFED mobilizes investment for the construction,
rehabilitation or expansion of infrastructure; sets up sustainable financial
institutions; builds economically viable enterprises that provide essential goods
and services; and creates employment opportunities.
The Aga Khan Academies (AKA), an integrated network of schools, are
dedicated to expanding access to education of an international standard of
excellence. The Academies, which will educate young men and women from
pre-primary through higher secondary education, are planned for key locations
in Africa and Asia. The first such school, the Aga Khan Academy in Mombasa,
began operating in August 2003.
Top: Al-Azhar Park, a project of the Aga Khan Trust for
Culture, has proven to be a powerful catalyst for urban
renewal in Darb al-Ahmar, one of the poorest districts
in Cairo.
Middle: Frigoken, an AKFED project company, supports
over 45,000 small scale farmers in rural Kenya.
Bottom: The Aga Khan Academies is dedicated to expanding
access to education of an international standard
of excellence.

In earthquake-prone regions of northern
Afghanistan, the Community Based Disaster
Risk Reduction project mobilizes emergency
response teams among students and community
members and trains them in disaster preparedness.
It is a project of the AKF USA and
Focus Humanitarian Assistance, funded by the
US Agency for International Development.
Focus Humanitarian Assistance provides emergency relief supplies and
services to victims of conflict and natural disasters. It also works with AKF to
help people recover from these events and make the transition to long-term
development and self-reliance. AKDN institutions work together with the
world’s leading aid and development agencies.
Aga Khan Foundation U.S.A.
Aga Khan Foundation U.S.A. (AKF USA), established in 1981 in Washington,
DC, is a private, non-denominational, not-for-profit international organization
committed to the struggle against hunger, disease and illiteracy, primarily in
Africa and Asia. The Foundation works to address the root causes of poverty by
supporting and sharing innovative solutions in the areas of health, education,
rural development, civil society and the environment. Using community-based
approaches to meet basic human needs, the Foundation builds the capacity of
community and non-governmental organizations to have a lasting impact on
reducing poverty.
AKF USA’s role within AKDN includes mobilizing resources and strategic
partnerships with a variety of US-based institutional partners including
government agencies, policy institutes, corporations, foundations, NGOs,
universities, associations and professional networks. AKF USA serves as a
learning institution for program enhancement, policy dialogue and disseminating
best practices and knowledge resources. It collaborates in providing technical,
financial and capacity-building support to other AKDN agencies and programs
worldwide. In facilitating and representing AKDN interests in the US, AKF USA
organizes outreach campaigns, manages volunteer resources and conducts
development education among US constituencies.

A G A K H A N D E V E L O P M E N T N E T W O R K
THE IMAMAT
AGA KHAN DEVELOPMENT NETWORK
ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT
SOCIAL
DEVELOPMENT
CULTURE
Aga Khan Fund for
Economic Development
Aga Khan Agency
Aga Khan
Foundation
Aga Khan
University
University of
Central Asia
Aga Khan Trust
for Culture
Tourism Promotion
Services
Industrial Promotion
Services
Aga Khan Education Services
Aga Khan Health Services
Aga Khan Award
for Architecture
Aga Khan Historic
Cities Programme
Financial Services
Media Services
Aga Khan Planning and
Building Services
Aga Khan
Music Initiative
Museums &
Exhibitions
Aviation Services
Aga Khan Academies
Focus Humanitarian Assistance
The AKDN is the largest private international network of its kind. AKDN agencies are comprised of both nonprofit and commercial forprofit
entities. The Network brings together a number of agencies, institutions and programs that have accumulated an extensive history
of experience in social, economic and cultural development. Each agency has a particular mandate and expertise, ranging from the
environment, health, education, architecture, culture, microfinance, rural development, disaster reduction, the promotion of privatesector
enterprise and the revitalization of historic cities.

T h e m e : E d u c a t i o n – T h e Un i v e r s a l B r i d g e
Each year Aga Khan Foundation U.S.A. (AKF USA) explores international
development issues via a specific theme that is significant to the Foundation’s
focus areas in health, education, rural development, civil society and the
environment. Our theme, Education: The Universal Bridge, underscores the
importance of Aga Khan Foundation’s enduring commitment to educational
institutions and capacity-building efforts in Africa and Asia. Two articles by
education experts are included in this year’s report to explore in greater depth
the issues related to children's transition to school (see section "Development
Solutions with Lasting Impact").
Education serves as a bridge to help individuals and communities build more
productive, fulfilling and dignified lives. The Foundation’s educational activities
span across a broad range of initiatives to help people in Asia and Africa reach
their full potential from early childhood development to primary and secondary
school improvement to skills and management training for professionals,
entrepreneurs and community members. Health-related activities include
training nurses and educating communities about disease prevention and
healthy behaviors. Rural development programs teach farmers effective
techniques to help them move beyond subsistence. All of these efforts equip
people with life-long skills to overcome poverty and build healthy, self-reliant
and dignified lives.
AKF USA has a growing portfolio in education with generous support from
institutional donors such as the US Agency for International Development,
The William and Flora Hewlett Foundation and International Youth
Foundation, among others. The Foundation also works in close collaboration
with its sister AKDN agencies to implement programs on the ground. The
following exemplify the range of our educational programs.

Early Childhood Development (ECD). AKF has been a pioneer in promoting
ECD for decades. With its child-centered approach and culturally appropriate
curricula, AKF’s model East Africa preschool program has grown to over 200
preschools, training 6,000 teachers and 3,000 school management
committee members and reaching over 60,000 children.
Training Nurses. Nurses form the front line of rural healthcare, often serving
as the first and only point of contact for health services in developing countries.
AKDN has established training programs in Pakistan, Afghanistan, Syria and
throughout East Africa to improve skills and qualifications as well as expand
the pool of qualified nurses.
Opposite page: A nursing teacher from Aga
Khan University in Karachi, Pakistan trains
students in the nursing program in
Afghanistan. An AKF agriculturalist trains
Afghan farmers in better farming techniques
and promotes the use of seed banks.
Above: At Learning Resource Centers in
Tajikistan, teachers are guided in child-centered
teaching methods and learn to make
low-cost learning aids to enrich lessons.
School Improvement and Teacher Training. AKDN operates more than
300 schools and programs that provide quality preschool, primary, and
secondary education services to students in Afghanistan, Pakistan, India,
Bangladesh, Kenya, the Kyrgyz Republic, Uganda, Tanzania, and Tajikistan.
Professional Development Centers provide world-class training to boost a
growing cadre of competent, inspiring teachers.
Building Skills and Knowledge among Rural Populations. In most areas
where the Foundation works, agricultural production is the primary economic
activity for a majority of the people. The Foundation trains farmers in improved
agricultural techniques to expand yields and productivity, which in turn,
improve food security and incomes.

At the Teachers Resource Centers in Tanzania,
teachers participate at an in-service
training workshop and are provided with a
forum to discuss issues of professional
interest.
Excellence in Education: Academies and Universities. Aga Khansponsored
academies and universities such as the Aga Khan Academies, the
University of Central Asia and the Aga Khan University create new educational
models, with a vision to promote competent indigenous young leaders as a key
to progress in the developing world.
Community Outreach in the US. Across America, AKF USA volunteers reach
out through grassroots initiatives that educate communities about the positive
role they can play in solving global poverty. AKF USA’s educational initiatives
seek to inform, inspire and unite Americans as “global citizens” with
communities in Africa and Asia to build bridges of hope and to promote peace,
pluralism, prosperity and security globally.

Ye a r i n R e v i e w : E d u c a t i o n
A leading development priority for the Aga Khan Foundation (AKF) is the
promotion of quality education for all. From early childhood development to
higher education, AKF is ensuring that marginalized groups – girls, the
economically disadvantaged, physically challenged and geographically remote
– are able to access quality education, stay in school longer and attain higher
academic achievements.
In Sub-Saharan Africa, half of children do not complete five years of primary
school. Globally, India and Pakistan account for 30 percent of out-of-school
primary aged children. These are the environments in which the Foundation
works.
AKF USA partners with other AKDN agencies
as well as non-governmental organizations,
civil society groups and governments
to implement effective education programs.
Ensuring that education is accessible is only half of the battle. A good
education is not defined by mere access to a classroom or a teacher. With
relevant curriculums, more engaging learning environments and dynamic
teaching methods, children leave AKF classrooms better prepared to tackle
life’s most challenging issues – whether that means providing for a family,
starting a business or leading a community.
Strengthening partnerships goes hand-in-hand with strengthening education
systems. By facilitating better links between governments and school boards
and parents and teachers, the Foundation uses the power of partnerships to
ensure its education programs are long-lasting. AKF partners with other
agencies within the Aga Khan Development Network (AKDN) as well as other
non-governmental organizations, civil society groups and governments to
implement effective education programs.

y e a r i n r e v i e w : e d u c a t i o n
Improving the Quality of Early Learning in East Africa
PROBLEM: High Dropout Rates and Poor Learning Outcomes in Grades 1-3
After East Africa introduced free primary education for all, students flooded
schools that were already struggling with a limited number of teachers and
resources. In Uganda, enrollment increased from 2.6 million to 7 million, and
Kenya gained nearly 2 million new students. With large classroom sizes and
minimal teaching materials, many children were not receiving a quality
education. Dropout rates rose with the lack of interactivity and attention from
teachers. Students were simply unable to keep up with the curriculum. In
Uganda, for example, one third of enrolled students drop out in first grade.
Many of those who remain in school do not reach expected levels of
competency in reading and mathematics. 1
AKF USA, in partnership with The William
and Flora Hewlett Foundation, is implementing
the Reading to Learn instructional model
in 115 schools in Kenya and Uganda to improve
reading and math comprehension
among students in grades 1-3.
This education crisis begins specifically in early primary years – the most
crucial time for a child’s social and intellectual development. Half of Africa’s
children do not complete five years of primary school, negatively impacting
their education and abilities for the rest of their lives.
SOLUTION: East Africa Quality in Early Learning Program
Aga Khan Foundation has been a pioneer in promoting early childhood
development (ECD) for three decades and has been a leading partner in the
Consultative Group on Early Childhood & Development. In 2007, AKF USA,
in partnership with The William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, established the
East Africa Quality in Early Learning (EAQEL) Research and Development
project. EAQEL is combining innovative education approaches with monitoring
and impact evaluation techniques to measure the program’s effectiveness at
improving literacy and math skills. The successes of this program may
eventually be adopted by the Governments of Kenya and Uganda for broader
impact throughout their education systems.
The program is benefiting 64 primary schools in Kenya and 51 primary
schools in Uganda. In each school, the project focuses on improving the
classroom environment, providing learning materials and books, encouraging
parents to get more involved, and increasing dialogue among key stakeholders.
To support the delivery of curriculum in grades 1–3, teachers at the 115
schools were trained to use the Reading to Learn education approach – a
step-by-step way to teach literacy and numeracy that encourages active
1 National Assessment for Primary Education Report, 2006.

y e a r i n r e v i e w : e d u c a t i o n
learning. To help facilitate this transition, School Management Committee
members and parents also learn about their roles to become more active in
supporting children’s learning.
Schools procured practice books and mini libraries, allowing children to get
more involved in each lesson and encouraging reading outside the classroom.
In the first year, 82 percent of learners in Kenya borrowed and read books from
mini libraries. Additionally, newly established community libraries have helped
increase parental involvement by giving parents access to learning materials.
After structured coaching, parents now understand the importance of taking
an active part in their child’s education by reading with their children,
storytelling and encouraging homework. Seventy percent of the 1,200 trained
parents in Kenya and 60 percent of the 690 trained parents in Uganda are
now aware of their sons’ and daughters’ academic progress. Thanks to the
program, now teachers, committee members and parents are working together
to hold their schools accountable and to motivate their children to succeed.
With more resources and support, East African schools can begin the
transition to a supportive and fulfilling learning environment.
To encourage a reading culture, the East
Africa Quality in Early Learning Program
has set up community libraries where parents
and community members regularly
meet to play learning games with children,
learn how to read and sign out books.

y e a r i n r e v i e w : e d u c a t i o n
Education for Marginalized Children in Kenya
PROBLEM: Marginalized Children Need Greater Educational Support
The introduction of free primary education by the Government of Kenya has
significantly increased access to primary schooling. Enrollment expanded
from 5.9 million pupils in 2002 to 8.6 million in 2009. However, many
challenges persist, particularly around ensuring quality learning opportunities.
Insufficient resources and preparation at the school level have also meant that
this increase continues to overwhelm the system, causing a concern that
traditionally marginalized groups face a greater risk of being underserved,
especially in Nairobi, Coast and North Eastern provinces. As a result, children
are missing a vital opportunity to grow, learn and prepare for the future.
SOLUTION: Education for Marginalized Children in Kenya
AKF is expanding its Whole School Approach
to improve learning and teaching among marginalized
children living in the slums of
Nairobi and Mombasa and other poor regions
of Kenya.
Education for Marginalized Children in Kenya (EMACK) is a holistic program
aimed at improving access and retention rates for children underserved by
the education system. Building upon a number of strategies and AKF’s
successful Whole School Approach, EMACK works to increase community
and parental participation in all aspects of school life. It enhances
coordination and dialogue to inform the national education strategy and
improves teaching practices and learner outcomes at the early childhood,
primary and secondary school levels. The program is active in Nairobi, Coast
and North Eastern provinces, where activities have been tailored to reflect
the local education needs as well as the experience of AKF.
The approaches incorporated into EMACK include: (1) A student-centered
focus with attention to quality, purpose and relevance. This requires an explicit
emphasis on promoting self-esteem, enthusiasm for learning and problemsolving.
(2) Working to influence all levels of the system – family, community,
local and traditional institutions, civil society, district-level government services
and national policymakers. (3) Building long-term partnerships – a central
feature for effective programming, sustainability and scaling-up – with local
NGOs, communities and government agencies. (4) Action learning and
documentation to both strengthen services and enhance advocacy.

y e a r i n r e v i e w : e d u c a t i o n
AKF collaborates with a range of locally based partners, the Ministry of
Education in Kenya and the US Agency for International Development
(USAID). With generous funding from USAID, AKF will continue to strengthen
the program’s effectiveness by 2014 to reach nearly 800 schools; train over
4,000 teachers, parents and education officials; benefit 275,000 students;
and build the capacity of the Ministry of Education to replicate EMACK’s best
practices nationwide.
Education for Marginalized Children in
Kenya supports 77 integrated early childhood
development centers in the Coast and
North Eastern Provinces of Kenya in partnership
with AKF’s Madrasa Resource Center,
Kenya.

y e a r i n r e v i e w : e d u c a t i o n
Tranforming the Agrarian School in Mozambique
PROBLEM: Outdated Curriculum Leads to Inefficient Farming
In partnership with the Ford Foundation,
AKF is providing training, technical assistance
and scholarship funds to transform the
Agrarian School of Bilibiza in Mozambique
into an educational institution of excellence.
Cabo Delgado, the northernmost province in Mozambique has the highest
poverty rate in the country. But slowly the area is beginning to grow. Tourism
in the area is becoming more popular, and the fertile land is a good
environment for the region’s dominant economic activity – agriculture. In rural
areas, 95 percent of the households are involved in agricultural production.
Unfortunately, the Escola Agraria de Bilibiza (EAB) – the only agricultural
school in Cabo Delgado – has not kept pace. Cabo Delgado is developing
faster than its communities’ education, and as a result, communities are not
able to capitalize on new economic opportunities.

y e a r i n r e v i e w : e d u c a t i o n
The school's curriculum is in dire need of updating. The basic-level vocational
education currently leaves graduates unprepared and unmotivated to work in
agriculture. Many pursue other careers, and those who fail resort to outmoded
agricultural techniques that lead to poor yields and high vulnerability to floods,
droughts, insect plagues and animal attacks. Inexperienced school
management causes further complications that EAB must address. The
greatest concern, however, continues to be the curriculum’s incongruity with
the development priorities of the province.
SOLUTION: Upgrading the Agrarian School of Bilibiza in Mozambique
In February 2009, the Ford Foundation awarded a grant for AKF to provide
training, technical assistance and scholarship funds to transform the Agrarian
School of Bilibiza into an educational institution of excellence. As the only
agricultural institute in Cabo Delgado, EAB has the potential to play a key
role in the development of the region. AKF has helped introduce a more
advanced curriculum in the school, which will complement educational
changes being made by the government. Teachers have been trained to
conduct entrepreneurship courses alongside teaching agricultural techniques.
This provides students with the tools to think critically and analytically about
the best methods of growing and marketing their crops. In addition, 100
students from poor families received scholarships to attend the school.
As the program advances, all graduates of EAB will leave with knowledge of
modern farming techniques as well as entrepreneurial skills. Those welltrained
students will then, in turn, contribute to their community by running
profitable and successful agricultural businesses. The project plans to improve
school facilities and help increase EAB’s self-sustainability. Plans for a goat
breeding program, an aviary and additional farms are already underway,
which will generate critical income for the school’s upkeep and maintenance.
With an upgraded curriculum, the Agrarian
School of Bilibiza – the only agricultural
school in Cabo Delgado, Mozambique – has
potential to play a key role in development
in the region.

y e a r i n r e v i e w : e d u c a t i o n
Educating Girls in Afghanistan
PROBLEM: Gender Disparities in Afghanistan Leave Girls Uneducated
Educating women and girls is the most important investment a nation can
make, but in countries like Afghanistan, many girls do not make it through
even four years of school. Afghanistan’s education system struggles with a
host of obstacles. The war-torn country is still suffering from crumbling and
destroyed school facilities, few trained teachers and weak school support
systems. In primary schools, on average, there is only one teacher for every
65 students (UNICEF). Although education is compulsory for nine years, 25
percent of boys and only 5 percent of girls attend secondary school.
SOLUTION: Partnership for Advancing Community Education in Afghanistan
AKF USA is working in Afghanistan with
CARE, Catholic Relief Services and the International
Rescue Committee to expand access
to quality education especially for girls.
Supported by a grant from the US Agency
for International Development, the Partnership
for Advancing Community Education in
Afghanistan has enrolled 95,000 students
in community schools, of which 68 percent
are girls.
The Partnership for Advancing Community Education in Afghanistan (PACE-
A) is expanding opportunities for girls and boys to get an education by
providing classes closer to home. Many children must stay at home because
classes are too far away. PACE-A is bringing education to them.
Working in over 2,500 communities, the program is improving the quality of
basic education and getting more girls involved in the process. To address
cultural obstacles preventing girls from staying in school, AKF is working with
parents and training more women teachers. Female teachers encourage higher
enrollment levels for girls, as families are more likely to send their girls to
school when they are taught by a woman. Each year, about 15,000 mothers
and community members are enrolled in adult literacy classes, allowing
mothers to reinforce their child’s education at home. The program encourages
mothers to read to their children and help them with their homework. Many
women are now serving on school advisory and support councils as well.
An active example of partnership and collaboration, the Foundation is working
with a variety of partners to accomplish the important aims of PACE-A. In
collaboration with CARE, International Rescue Committee, Catholic Relief
Services, the Academy for Educational Development and with funding from
the USAID, tens of thousands of boys and girls in Afghanistan are now getting
a quality education and a path to a brighter future. So far, the program has
reached approximately 95,000 students, of which 68 percent are girls, and
3,700 teachers, of which 35 percent are female. The entire community is
directly involved in the education process, helping sustain the program and
nurture the next generation of educated youth.

D e v e l o p m e n t S o l u t i o n s w i t h L a s t i n g I m p a c t
As part of our annual report, Aga Khan Foundation U.S.A. is introducing the
first in a series of scholarly articles that examine innovative development
practices and their lasting impact on communities in need. Each year we will
aim to highlight important trends and solutions at the forefront of the
development field. Our goal is to contribute to the ongoing dialogue by sharing
the results of our experience and analyzing the impact of our programs.
In these articles, leading practitioners and scholars reflect on our work at Aga
Khan Foundation from a global development perspective, giving context to
our programs and progress. By framing our work within the broader picture,
we hope to provide our readers with insight into policy implications, spark
interest in development and stimulate ideas for alternative solutions.
In conjunction with our theme, “Education – The Universal Bridge,” the
following two articles address current debates, challenges and issues related
to children’s transition to school. Transition and school readiness are critical
topics for examination given the fact that the highest rate of dropouts and
repetition are in Grade 1 in many countries where the Foundation works. A
growing number of the AKF’s education programs and research studies now
focus on the issue of early transitions – not only as it relates to expanding the
range of early childhood supports to children and families but also, and
critically, to improve the quality of learning in early primary classrooms. For
the transition to be smooth, children need to be ready for school and schools
need to be ready for children. Transition is closely linked with another of AKF’s
cross-cutting themes – the work with marginalized or excluded groups. It is
precisely these children that are most at risk during the key transitions in the
education system.

Home to School and Preschool
to School Transitions 1
ROBERT MYERS, PH.D.
Founder and Consultant of the Consultative Group on Early Childhood Care for Development,
Independent Researcher and former Board Member of the Comparative and International Education Society
For the past 25 years or more, the education program of the
Aga Khan Foundation (AKF) has worked on a set of problems associated
with the transition from the learning environment of the
home to that of the primary school. It has been motivated to do
so by the increasingly accepted understanding that development
and learning during the early years affect intellect, personality and
behavior over the life course. It has been motivated also by the
continuing failure of many children in the Majority World to enter
primary school as well as by the high rates of grade repetition and
drop out among those who do attend. (AKF 2010, p. 2)
Support by the Foundation to programs of early childhood development
and particularly to preschool education has been a
central and consistent part of its strategy to bridge home-school
gaps and differences. That support has been provided within an
increasingly broad framework that includes attention not only to
the availability and quality of preschool programs, but also to
the effects on the transition to school of family circumstances, of
community contexts and of educational and related policies established
by governments. Particular attention has been given
as well by AKF to the role that primary schools should be expected
to play in achieving a successful transition from home to
school or from preschool to primary school. This school readiness
part of the process has too often been disregarded or
played down (Ibid.).
Before commenting further on AKF’s work in this area, a brief
discussion is in order of why this topic is important, of different
ways in which the home to school transition has been treated
and how this has changed over time.
Early Educational Transitions
and Why They are Important
“Transition” according to Webster’s New World Dictionary is “a
passing from one condition, form, state, activity, place, etc. to
another.” In the field of education, the passage that has received
a great deal of attention, particularly in the Minority
World, 2 is that from preschool to primary school. 3 Associated
with this mandated 4 passage, usually, are changes in physical
locations, teachers, friends, educational content, teaching methods,
hours and institutional rules and forms of discipline, to
mention a few of the most obvious. With the shift also come
changes in expectations (of teachers for children, of children and
parents about what they think will be learned) and in “status”
(to enter school is to acquire the title of “student” and to begin a
new phase in life). The change from preschool to school can
signify personal, social and academic development. However, it
can also be associated with a sense of uncertainty, separation,
longing for the past or disorientation. A major concern is that a
“difficult” transition, for whatever reason, can create lasting
problems for students, reflected in low educational performance,
social or emotional problems and, perhaps, repetition and
1
I am indebted to Kathy Bartlett and Caroline Arnold, co-directors of AKF’s education program, for providing me with program documents as well as with
their own writing on this theme. I am also grateful to Sharon Lynn Kagan for sharing content from the soon-to-be published book, Transitions in the Early
Years: Creating a System of Continuity, which brings together in an extensive review and analysis of the latest thinking about transition seen from a number
of perspectives. The responsibility for the interpretation and use of these materials in this article is, however, obviously mine.
2
Minority and Majority World will be used to avoid the idea of “developed” vs. “developing” or “first” vs. “third” worlds. Minority refers to “developed” world.
3
In the Minority World where most of the research and evaluation related to this theme has been carried out, the emphasis now appears to be on the transition
from preschool to kindergarten which used to be considered preschool but now seems to be considered part of school.
4
In Minority World countries, the decision about when to enter preschool and school and the passage through the system in general is controlled by a set of
age-related laws that dictate when passages should occur. Children and parents have little say about the timing of this transition.

school leaving at an early age. It can provoke or reinforce a debilitating
sense of incompetence and failure. A prime question
for both researchers and policy makers has been, “Why do some
children make this transition smoothly and others do not, presumably
with negative effects on their future productivity, well
being and contributions as citizens” Another question is,
“What can we do about it”
Although the emphasis on the perils of moving from preschool to
school and what to do about it characterizes transition concerns
today in the Minority World where most children already attend
preschool, it is the “transition” directly from home to school that
is often the main concern in Majority World countries where the
AKF works, countries in which many children do not have the
chance to attend a preschool before entering primary school.
This is not the place to go into detail about definitional differences.
However, I have put “transition” in quotes because, conceptually,
at least to me, the notion of a transition means not
only moving from one state or condition to another but also, in
the passage, leaving behind the previous condition. This works
for the passing from preschool to school because preschool is
left behind. It does not work so well when talking about the
move from home into school because a child does not leave the
family behind; rather, the movement is back and forth between
two places, each with their own characteristics and demands.
Some have preferred to use the terms “horizontal transition”
(Kagan 2010) or “border crossing” (Campbell Clark 2000) for
such situations. In these conceptualizations, the emphasis is
placed on relationship(s) among different learning environments
in which a child participates. The question then is not only how
a child adjusts to a new environment (school) and how “continuity”
may be achieved between them so as to facilitate learning in
the new one, but also how the passage may affect development
and learning in the parallel and continuing environment (home,
but perhaps also the community, the child care center, the
church and the media), and how the differential characteristics
of each environment might be drawn upon to best advantage in
each setting, without creating confusion that drags down the development
and learning processes.
The passage from home to school will be emphasized in this article.
In that passage, worries about discontinuities, adjustment
difficulties and effects on learning and life are supposedly magnified
because the differences between home and school settings
are thought to be much greater than differences between preschool
and school environments. Indeed, establishing
preschools is seen as a way of getting closer to school and of
moderating home-school differences, thereby facilitating the
home-to-school transition. A growing literature from the Majority
as well as Minority Worlds suggests that this strategy can
have the desired effects (Kagan 2010).

Home, Preschool and School
Learning Environments
As suggested above, in most discussions of early educational
transitions, whether from home to school or from preschool to
school, it is assumed that the learning environments characterizing
these settings are different, enough so that a child faces unsettling
discontinuities when these shifts occur. Therefore, a
great deal of thought and action has been directed toward easing
passages by creating greater continuity among settings under
the additional assumption that greater continuity will make
things easier. But what are these differences One rendering, of
only a few of many possible differences among the learning environments,
is set out in Figure 1.
It should be clear to most readers from a quick look at Figure 1
that the brief descriptions presented are stereotyped views of
what happens in homes, preschools and schools. And yet,
these seem to have a familiar ring. For instance, most primary
schools, particularly in the Majority World, continue to be rather
formal, authoritarian places focused on memorizing and transmitting
knowledge about subjects that may or may not be of interest
to large groups of passive students. Children must adjust
to the inflexible rules and curriculum of the school. The language
of instruction is usually the national language, regardless
of what language the students speak at home.
At the same time, common sense tells us that these descriptions
may or may not hold in particular contexts. Less obvious is the
idea that, at least in some contexts and on some dimensions,
the home and school contexts may not vary as much as Figure 1
would have us believe. For instance, in some of the cultures in
which AKF works, parents tend to be formal and even authoritarian
with their children. They probably believe in the rote
learning and memorization that still characterizes the school.
Children should be taught and told what to do in both settings.
The language spoken at home and in the school may be the
same. Accordingly, in at least some characteristics and settings,
the home and the school may feel very much alike.
I stress the real possibility of similarities between home and
school learning environments to suggest that identifying or
achieving continuity between home and school is not an end in
and of itself; indeed, many would argue that if both environments
impose learning, are authoritarian and eschew active
learning, both need to be changed. This argument may be
grounded in research evidence that suggests children learn better
if they explore, are motivated, etc. Or, it might be based in a
value position stemming, for example, from the Convention on
the Rights of the Child which states that children should be seen
as subjects, not objects; they deserve to be active participants in
their learning. In brief, there is a value dimension to thinking
about transitions that suggests there are better and worse ways
Figure 1
Learning Environments:
The Home, Early Childhood Programs and the School
Home Preschool School
An informal, loving adult-child relationship
Learning through imitation, experience and
trial and error
Contextualized learning
An informal, supportive adult-child relationship
Learning through play and discovery
A mix of contextualized and decontextualized
learning
A formal, less personal adult-child relationship
Learning through didactic teaching, memorization
Decontextualized learning
Modeling, one-on-one teaching Numerous children to one adult Many children to one adult
Adjustments to the interests and needs of
the child
Adjustments to interests and needs of the
child, in the context of the group
Adjustment of the child to the demands of
the school
Emphasis on the concrete Use of concrete/objects to teach concepts Use of symbols
Active participation in chores and rituals Activity-based learning Passive role in learning and school events
Learning in the mother tongue
Learning in the mother tongue, perhaps with
the introduction of a national language
Learning in the national language
Emphasis on process Emphasis on process Emphasis on results

to educate, independent of how similar or different home and
school may be. There are as well cross-cutting issues that have
to do with equity, quality, respect for diversity and with particular
social values and virtues (e.g., valuing autonomy over solidarity)
that felt learning environments should reflect and
promote.
In some characteristics set out in Figure 1, however, there are
clear differences between home and school. Homes have a
much better adult to child ratio for instance. That may or may
not make them better learning environments. 5 At the same
time, we know that very large classes in schools rarely lead to
good results. Class size and the child/teacher ratio are variables
that educational systems can, in theory, control. In theory, transitions
would be aided if class sizes and ratios were reduced.
But another variable enters: available resources. One sees
quickly how complex issues of transition become and how they
move well beyond pedagogy to structural features of institutions,
to policy and to finances (Kagan 2010).
Changes in Approaches to Transition
Research with Implications for Action
There have been some major shifts in the way transitions from
home and preschool to school have been thought about and acted
upon over the last 25 years. AKF programs have experimented
with and lead some of these shifts which are still seen as part of a
“work in progress.” Among the changes are the following:
1. From developmental psychology focused on the child to an
interdisciplinary view. At an early stage, transition work
asked whether or not children were mature enough or developmentally
“ready” to make the shift into primary school. A
psychological or developmental approach looked hard at
how the pedagogies of preschool and primary school might
be brought closer together to ease the transition. The press
for pedagogical articulation bothered many preschool teachers
and advocates who expressed their concern about moving
the formal didactic orientation of schools downward into
preschools instead of moving active learning upward into
5
Although the ratio may be much more favorable in the home, adults at home have demands on their time that have little to do directly with a child’s development
and learning; whereas, that is the full-time task assigned to teachers.

the early years of primary school. With notable exceptions
in the Minority World (Sweden, for example) that does seem
to have occurred (kindergarten is now part of school). The
position within AKF has been that primary schools should
be much more attuned to active learning methods in the
early years, something made difficult, however, by large
numbers of students and sometimes by cultural traditions
that give little space to exploration and play.
As anthropologists, sociologists, health and nutritional researchers,
political scientists and others have become involved
in the study of transitions, greater attention has been
given to home, community and broader contexts. For instance,
the importance of friends (Corsaro, et al. 2003), absent
fathers, child rearing patterns in the home, health and
nutritional status, community support (Dockett and Perry
2007), etc. began to appear as factors to be taken more directly
into account when considering adjustments to the new
educational environment of the primary school. And, as suggested
above, the broader view of transition also led beyond
pedagogy to analyses of structural limitations within educational
systems as well as the articulation of policies across related
fields. This broader view has begun to take root.
2. From preparing the child and family for school to preparing
the child and family for school AND preparing the school for
the child it will receive. Previously, most if not all emphasis
was placed on getting children ready for school. The main responsibility
for this lay with families but there were things
governments could do to help out including expanding and
improving preschools. Nevertheless, when children failed
during the early years, the tendency of teachers, parents (and
even the children themselves) was to place the blame on the
child. Schools were not at fault and schooling was treated as
given. Accordingly, early education programs became more
and more directed toward correcting that problem, with increasing
emphasis on developing specific cognitive skills
needed in primary schools rather than on integral development.
Indeed, this view continues to dominate thinking.
However, another view has emerged in which all children of a
certain age are considered in some sense “ready” for primary

3. From considering the child as an object to viewing the child
as a subject. The Convention on the Rights of the Child
clearly states the importance of treating children as people
with specific rights. They are people who, even during the
early years, should have the opportunity to offer opinions,
including opinions about how their environment might be
improved, and to be actively involved in their own development
and learning (Lam and Pollard 2006). They should
be listened to. Nevertheless, until recently, most of the research
on transitions was based on information obtained
from adult perceptions of how children adjust to school.
Children were not asked. As a result, some topics of particular
significance to children, such as peer relationships and
bullying, did not necessarily appear as important issues to
be dealt with during the transition.
school, but with levels and kinds of readiness that differ from
child to child and perhaps even group to group. A child may
be healthy and intelligent but is not ready to speak in the national
language. A child may handle the national language
reasonably well but lack certain social skills. Slowly, rather
than think that families and preschools should carry the full
burden for preparing children, more attention is being given to
the idea that primary schools should be more flexible and
should be prepared to change what they do during the early
years in order to be ready for the diverse children they receive.
In writings of the AKF staff and elements of AKF programming,
this way of thinking is reflected. Schools should
be welcoming, inclusive, responsive, offer appropriate and relevant
learning experiences, and know how to work with differences
among the children they receive (Arnold, Bartlett,
Gowani and Shallwani 2008).
Moreover, the Foundation has taken on an important advocacy
role in calling attention to the need to reform and
strengthen the early years of primary school. It has argued
that governments and international organizations tend to give
priority to the later years, failing to provide the resources and
policies necessary to improve the early grades (AKF 2010).
4. From seeing transition as a moment in time to seeing it as a
continuous process. Much of the transition research and
many of the actions suggested as most pertinent for resolving
transition problems have focused on the moment of
transition to the school or perhaps a brief period before and
another just after making the passage. Children and families
were provided with visits and orientations to the school.
Administrative procedures were introduced to make sure
children’s records from preschool followed them into the primary.
Occasionally, older children were assigned to younger
ones to make sure they had someone to help then navigate
the new environment. The first few days or weeks of school
was sometimes made to feel much more like a continuation
of preschool.
Again, the view has broadened. The passage into school is
now recognized as something that is affected by what happens
long before the actual move occurs and continues well
into the primary school years (Love and Raikes 2007). It is
part of a continuous educational passage in which children
change teachers and curricula and spaces each year in the
school. It is part of a longer-term process of working with
parents and communities.
All of these shifts in thinking and action have involved moves toward
more sophisticated and complicated ways of considering the
passage from home and preschool to school. Keeping this broad
view in mind, let me turn now to discuss what has been done and
what might be done to help children as they shift among learning
environments.

greater continuity among them vs. providing “compensatory” programs
that do little to change either environment but try to provide
children with additional tools to function in primary schools.
When the differences between or among learning environments
are huge, as is often the case in the Majority World, actions that
seek to create greater continuity probably need to be accompanied
by what are often called “compensatory” actions. For instance, if
a child is malnourished or has a very limited vocabulary it may be
necessary to create special programs directed toward these particular
shortcomings. However, if nothing is done in the meantime
to change the environments that produce the shortcomings, the
problem will continue over time.
How Can the “Transition” from
Home to School be Facilitated
The main answer to this question has been, and probably will
continue to be, by (1) providing the child with a solid and integral
developmental base to take forward into (2) quality primary
schools that are welcoming, inclusive and responsive, that offer
appropriate integral and relevant learning experiences, and know
how to work with differences among the children they receive.
The solid developmental base may be provided at home but
more often will require (3) complementary attention to children
in quality Early Childhood Education and other programs that
complement or compensate for unfavorable conditions in home
environments. Along the way, at both preschool and school levels,
important efforts are needed to (4) build on and enhance
strengths in home learning environments and activities of parents
that will enrich the developmental base and support formal
educational programs. All of this should be set within a context
of supportive communities and policy frameworks. But all of
this is easier said than done in the real world.
As the definition of the problem and the way to approach it has
broadened, the variety of actions that have been carried out has
broadened as well. There are several ways in which these might
be classified. One of these is in terms of actions that focus on
changes in the respective environments that help to provide
Another classification of actions to improve transitions might be
according to the emphasis actions put on particular actors (children,
parents, communities, preschools, primary schools, educational
systems, policy makers). Who/what is expected to change
For instance, in the most common focus on children, a wide variety
of interventions affecting their health, nutritional and cognitive
developmental status have been put in place to make them
“ready” for school (see below). However, within each of these categories
it is possible to identify many actions that have been tried
out (orientation sessions for parents, curriculum changes in the
first months of primary school, reducing child/teacher ratios in first
grade, etc.). Again, it is clear that combinations of these will be
more effective than actions focused on a single actor.
Kagan (2010) has suggested a new typology of pedagogical,
programmatic and policy actions that are needed, emphasizing
the need to incorporate much more forcefully and centrally the
world of policy.
In this article, rather than elaborate or use any of these I prefer
to discuss three basic strategies that seem to have characterized
work on transitions.
Strategies for Facilitating Home
to School Transitions 6
1. Change the child and the home. Here the problem is seen
as one of deficiencies in the child and in the home that leave
the child poorly prepared for school. 7 This is the most fre-
6
This section draws on Myers 1997.
7
To be prepared, a child should be: physically healthy and well nourished; able to handle basic cognitive concepts; able to communicate in everyday transactions
and in the language of school; able to relate to others; psychologically self-assured with a good self concept; able to work independently; and motivated
to learn.

quent approach to improving transitions and includes a wide
variety of early childhood interventions (preschools among
them) originating mainly in education, health and social welfare
programs. In its early years of programming, AKF focused
heavily on this strategy, with programs to provide
children with a preschool experience. It has done so using a
holistic approach placing emphasis on recognizing, respecting
and building on strengths as well as on addressing issues in
the broader context which can put a brake on young children’s
development. Evaluations by AKF of these programs
leave little doubt that these have been effective (p.e.,
Mwaura, Sylva and Malmberg 2008; AKF 2009).
Despite its proven effectiveness in many places, this approach
must be viewed as partial and with some related
cautions such as:
a. Implicitly or explicitly the blame for failure in school is
on the child or family, potentially contributing to the
culture of failure.
b. The strategy may bring with it intended or unintended
devaluing of popular or minority cultures. The crosscutting
consideration of respect for diversity comes
into play.
c. The strategy begins by identifying “deficits” and focuses
on how to “compensate” for them rather than
accentuate strengths.
Better preparing children for school may involve less attention
to skills and abilities crucial to everyday living. Sometimes
an integrated view of child development is lost in
order to enhance cognitive development.
Limits on the effectiveness of these programs may be related
also to the poor quality of programs offered (another of
the cross-cutting themes). Moreover, particularly large gaps
between what children bring to school and what schools expect
from them may make filling those gaps impossible before
arrival at school. In many settings these are related to
poverty, suggesting the need to place them in a broader policy
context reaching well beyond education.
2. Changing the school. As mentioned earlier, in recent years
more attention has been given to changing the school to be
more receptive to incoming students. This is happening in
a variety of ways that include:
a. Adding special programs within the primary school to
help children. These might be special courses given
just before children enter but run by the primary
schools, arranging tutorials for students who need
them and strengthening health and nutritional elements
in programs.
b. Changing the curriculum and pedagogical practices.
Some schools have created a special period during the
first months of the first year of primary in which the
curriculum is more exploratory and play-based. This
does not necessarily mean a new commitment to a
new way of teaching but, rather, is intended to provide
a space for adjustment on arrival.
c. Change the teacher. Sylva and Blatchford (1994) suggest
several strategies to improve teaching in the early
grades. First, train teachers differently for lower and
upper primary grades. Second, place the most able
and highly qualified teachers in the lower grades. This
may require introducing special incentives. Third, include
in teacher training guidance on young children’s
learning needs, language and bi-lingual development
as well as on appropriate active learning pedagogy.
Fourth, develop career structures for teachers to increase
motivation and commitment and provide ongoing
training. (Unfortunately, much of the present
on-the-job training occurs through short courses and
with no follow-up so teachers do not change their
classroom behavior.)
d. Change the administration, organization and rules. Perhaps
reductions in the number of children per teacher
fall into this category. In another vein, New Zealand has
experimented with entrance on an individual basis when
a child turns five, regardless of when that occurs during
the year. The argument is that this assures more individual
attention to children.
Often the histories of school systems, entrenched structural
problems and resource constraints, perceived or real, make
it difficult to carry out these kinds of changes.
3. Seeking smoother transitions by building linkages: education
as a shared experience. This third approach stresses
strengthening the relationships among diverse people and institutions
that influence a child’s early development. This
strategy will include actions that seek to smooth the transition

y making a child’s various environments look more alike. In
looking at the move from preschool to school, for instance, it
might involve: providing greater continuity in the curricula of
the two, a common core curriculum in teacher training institutions
for preschool and primary school teachers for some
period of their training, allowing a teacher to move with
her/his students as they make the passage from preschool to
the first year or two of primary, and building collaborative relationships
between preschool and primary teachers through
regular meetings, joint ongoing training.
To help home and school relate the usual approach is to work to
“educate” parents so they will change the home learning environment.
What this strategy seldom takes into account is that
parents have positive practices that can be reinforced, some of
which teach children entirely different things than they will learn
in school. The strategy seldom sees parents as resources for the
school beyond their providing funds or helping with maintenance.
Parents are often kept at the door and not allowed to
become involved in the school, something that can increase the
understanding and communication for both parties.
If one thinks of relationships between health or social welfare
systems and the school, another set of actions to strengthen
common cause is required.
Perhaps the essential point associated with this strategy is that,
even while making some helpful adjustments in the home or the
school that may “smooth the transition,” it is also valuable to: (1)
find ways to respect the unique and positive points of each environment;
(2) anticipate and provide orientation for changes that will
be faced by children and parents; and (3) develop broad coping
skills in children (rather than try to mold them to one environment
or another); foster continuing communication among the adults in
the child’s life; and find means of supporting each child in his or
her particular passages (Myers 2007).
In Closing
In closing, I would like to emphasize that Aga Khan Foundation,
together with the Bernard van Leer Foundation, UNICEF and other
organizations associated with the Consultative Group on Early
Childhood Care and Development, has taken on an extremely important
role in calling attention to the importance of working on
transition to primary school in the Majority World over the past 25
years. As indicated earlier, most of the work on this topic and
most of the publicity given to it has been carried out in the Minority
World until very recently. AKF has called attention to the topic
by example, supporting specific programs in a variety of countries.
These programs have not only benefited the local populations but
have fed into an international literature as the results of evaluations
have been published (e.g., Mwara 2008; Institute for Professional
Development 2008; AKF 2009). It has called attention by
carrying out research reviews and sharing the results (AKF 2010).
It has participated in both academic meetings (e.g., Bartlett and
Arnold 2010) and international agency activities (Arnold, Bartlett,
Gowani, and Merali, 2006) where strong advocacy positions have
been presented based on solid information from concrete experiences
as well as on a general view of the field. Of particular significance
has been the relatively recent advocacy work directed
toward putting the “readiness of schools for children” on the international
agenda and toward identifying how the first years of primary
school might be strengthened so as to improve the progress
and performance of students throughout primary and beyond.
Although there are signs of progress, a host of issues remain to
be sorted out including:
• How particular policy changes affect the transition process.
• The role of various elements of primary school
quality have in facilitating transition.
• How the difficulties of bilingualism can be turned to advantage
instead of working against children as they learn to
read and write.
• How transitions affect families and how these changes, in
turn, affect the ongoing transition process.
• Effects of better transition on gender equity.
• How various innovations (such as putting better teachers in
the first grade, putting the same teacher in charge of a
group of children from kindergarten through the second
grade, using a child-to-child approach in which older primary
school students serve as tutors and guides for entering
children) actually work when put in place on the ground.
• Understanding better the role of peer relationships in
transitions.
Much remains to be done; the work by AKF and others on transition
merits continuing and strengthening.

References
Aga Khan Foundation (2009). “Learning Achievement of Students in Grade 1 in Kyrgyzstan.” Geneva: Aga Khan Foundation.
Arnold, C., K. Bartlett, S. Gowani, and R. Merali. (2006) “Is Everybody Ready Readiness, Transition and Continuity: Reflections and Moving Forward.” A
background paper prepared for the Global Monitoring Report 2007. Geneva: Aga Khan Foundation. See updated version published in 2007 by the Aga
Khan Foundation and the Bernard van Leer Foundation (BvLF) as working paper 41 in the BvLF’s series on Early Childhood Development. The Hague:
BvLF.
Arnold, C., K. Bartlett, S. Gowani and S. Shallwani (Fall 2008). “Transition to School: Reflections on Readiness.” The Journal of Developmental Processes,
Vol. 3, (2), pp. 26-38.
Bartlett, K. and C. Arnold (2010). “Attaining Equity and Quality in Early Education: Perspectives from the Majority World.” A presentation prepared for the
annual conference of the Comparative and International Education Society, March 1-5, 2010.
Bartlett, Sheridan, Aga Khan Foundation (2010) “Improving Learning Achievement in Early Primary in Low-Income Countries. A Review of the Literature.”
Geneva: Aga Khan Foundation.
Campbell Clark, S. (2000). Work/Family Border Theory: A New Theory of Work/Family Balance. Human Relations, 53 (6); pp. 747-770.
Centre of Excellence for Early Childhood Development (2007). Encyclopedia on Early Childhood Development. http://www.child-encyclopedia.com/EN-CA/
school-transition. The Encyclopedia includes the following brief syntheses of research:
Early, D. “Services and Programs that Influence Young Children’s School Transitions.”
Ladd, G. W. “School Readiness: Preparing Children for the Transition from Preschool to Grade School. Comments on Love and Raikes, Zill and Resnick.”
Ladd, G. W. “School Transitions/School Readiness: An Outcome of Early Childhood Development.”
Love, J. M. and H. H. Raikes. “Transitions Begin Early.”
Rimm-Kaufman, S. “School Transition and School Readiness: An Outcome of Early Childhood Development.”
Stipek, D. J. (2003). “School Entry Age.”
Zill, N. and G. Resnick. “Role of Early Childhood Education Intervention Programs in Assisting Children with Successful Transitions to School.”
Corsaro, W.A., L. Molinari, K. Gold Hadley and H. Sugioka (2003). “Keeping and Making Friends: Italian Children’s Transition from Preschool to Elementary
School.” Social Psychology Quarterly, Vol. 66, No. 3, pp. 272-292.
Dockett, S. and B. Perry (2007). Transitions to School: Perceptions, Expectations, Experiences. Sydney: UNSW Press.
Institute for Professional Development (2008). “Zero Grade Program. Learning Impact Study.” Geneva: Aga Khan Foundation.
Kagan, S.L., (2010). “Seeing Transition through a New Prism, Pedagogical, Programmatic and Policy Alignment,” in S.L. Kagan (ed.) Transitions in the Early
Years: Creating a System of Continuity. Baltimore: Brookes Publishing Co. Forthcoming.
Kagan, S.L. and M.J. Neuman (1998). “Lessons from Three Decades of Transition Research.” The Elementary School Journal 98(4): 365–379.
La Paro, K. M., S. E. Rimm-Kaufman & R. C. Pianta (2006). “Kindergarten to First Grade: Classroom Characteristics and Children’s Experiences.” Journal of
Research in Childhood Education, 21(2), 189-202.
Lam, M.S. and Pollard, A. (2006). “A Conceptual Framework for Understanding Children as Agents in the Transition from Home to Kindergarten.” Early Years,
26 (2): pp. 123–141.
Mwaura, P., K. Sylva, Kathy and L. Malmberg (2008). “Evaluating the Madrasa Preschool Programme in East Africa: A Quasi-experimental Study,”
International Journal of Early Years Education, 16:3, pp. 237-255.
Myers, R. (1997). “Removing Roadblocks to Success. Transitions and Linkages between Home, Preschool and Primary School.” Coordinators’ Notebook, No.
21. (Special issue on Transitions and Linkages) www.ecdgroup.com.
Rimm-Kaufman, S. E., & R. C. Pianta (2000). “An Ecological Perspective on Children’s Transition to Kindergarten: A Theoretical Framework to Guide Empirical
Research.” Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 21, 491-511.
Rogoff, B. (2003). The Cultural Nature of Human Development. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Sylva, K. and I.S. Blatchford (1994). “Bridging the Gap between Home and School: Improving Achievement in Primary Schools.” A report of four case studies
commissioned by UNESCO and Technical Consultation, Addis Ababa. Paris: UNESCO.
Vogler, P., G. Crivello and M. Woodhead (2008). “Early Childhood Transitions Research: A Review of Concepts, Theory, and Practice.” Working Paper No. 48.
The Hague, The Netherlands: Bernard van Leer Foundation.

Early Childhood Transitions in Transition:
Focusing on Equity, Quality, and Continuity
SHARON LYNN KAGAN, ED.D.
Professor, Teachers College, Columbia University and Child Study Center, Yale University
Co-director, National Center for Children and Families at Teachers College, Columbia University
As the article by Robert Myers acknowledges, gone are conventional
ideas suggesting that the only important transitions for
young children are those that occur as they leave preschool and
enter formal learning environments, or that transitions are a onetime
event at the end of a school year. Rather, our understandings
have become more comprehensive, embracing the reality
that young children and their families face many transitions and
that there are many changes that programs, schools, and other
institutions must make to accommodate the developmental
needs of young children.
Building upon these trends and Myers’ call for changes, this
commentary suggests that change is also needed in how transition
is conceptualized and positioned by thought leaders and policymakers.
Such changes are particularly urgent, given the reality
that the global growth in public commitments to early childhood
development has focused on increasing the quantity of services
provided, with less attention accorded either their quality or continuity.
Although such investments are welcome and provide for expanded
and more equitable services, data make abundantly clear
that in order to maximize their effectiveness, services (and the
policies associated with them) must also focus on quality and continuity.
Somewhat uniquely, transitions are a cornerstone of, and
vital prelude to, achieving all three−quality, equity, and continuity;
as such, they warrant considered attention, reconceptualization,
and repositioning.
Reconceptualizing Transitions
The importance of transitions to young children’s development
can be found in the writings and teachings of learning theorists
from Pestalozzi to Vygotsky, from Montessori to Dewey. Spanning
continents and eras, a commitment to the need for continuity
in children’s lives remained steadfast as time progressed and
as programs with diverse names and strategies (e.g., Child
Friendly Schools, Ready Schools, and Pre-k to 3) burgeoned.
And as the programs grew, so did evaluations that sought to determine
the durable impact of transitions. Many major national
evaluations in the United States sought to assess the impact of
transition as a means of assuring that children’s gains in social
competence and cognition were sustained over time. Multiple
evaluations including Follow Through (1967), Developmental
Continuity (1974), the Head Start Transition Project (1986), the
National Transition Study (1988), and the National Head Start
Public School Early Childhood Transition Demonstration Study
(1990), although characterized by somewhat disappointing results,
established a clear and continuous focus on transition and
the pre-k to 3 agenda. Internationally, although a transitions
agenda was supported by a limited number of foundations and
philanthropic entities, generally the goal of early education was
to establish services and to focus on their quality rather than on
the linkages among and between programs and services.
Building upon these experiential and empirical data, early childhood
specialists began to refine their transition ideas and practices.
First, they abandoned somewhat narrow
conceptualizations of transition as something that occurred only
within and between classrooms. Instead, they began to embrace
horizontal transitions−those that occur within and outside
the learning environment and impact it. In this mode of thinking,
horizontal transitions included, for example, fostering linkages
among the health, mental health, and nutrition services
that children need to ensure that in barriers to accessing these
essential services do not compromise learning. Ideas about
transitions were also expanded to include vertical

transitions−those that children navigate as they move not only
from preschool to school, but all the transitions that children experience
as they progress upward and outward from home to
communal and community care taking and then on to formal
school settings. The importance of these new ideas about horizontal
and vertical transition were generally acknowledged and
adopted by foundations, program leaders, and practitioners.
However accepted these ideas were, they too were somewhat
limited. First, despite the rhetoric, transition efforts continued to
focus primarily on preschool programs. Second, these new
ideas did not make their way into the heads and hearts of policymakers.
Third, the ideas, however wise, did not penetrate
services for all, or even most, youngsters. Transition remained a
worthy but unrealized goal. Recognizing these dilemmas, early
childhood specialists sought to link practice and policies associated
with transition. Pianta (in press) writes about an ecology of
transition; the US-based Foundation for Child Development has
adopted a view of transitions that focuses on alignment, school
organization, qualified teachers, classrooms as learning environments,
and accountability to parents and communities as cornerstones
of continuity. Another perspective suggests that in
order for transitions to become part of the fabric of early childhood
development, they must rest on alignment in three areas:
(i) the alignment of pedagogy that drives practice; (ii) alignment
in the programs that serve children, their families, and communities;
and (iii) the alignment of policies that frame both (Kagan
& Tarrant, in press). More specifically, this stance suggests that
truly effective transitions for children will not be realized until
alignment is achieved in the following three areas.
1. Pedagogical Alignment. What (the content) and how (the
practice) children are taught must be aligned so that they experience
a continuity of philosophy, curriculum, and pedagogy
across their early developmental years. This refers to the way
teachers hold their work, that is the way they understand
childhood and children (miniature adults vs. insatiably curious
children); how they approach teaching (didactic vs. emergent);
what they teach (subject vs. developmental domains); and the
values they espouse (how they view parents, home culture,
and language). It seeks alignment predicated on quality practices
across the age and environmental (home, outdoor community
program, school) spectrum. Currently, pedagogical
alignment is being manifest in the development of common
early learning standards, sequenced curricula, and in professional
development efforts that span an individual age-group,
program, or services.
2. Programmatic/Service Alignment. What the program does
outside the classroom must be aligned with familial and community
institutions and values. Because young children have
physical, health, social, and cognitive needs, a pedagogical
approach is insufficient to achieve effective transitions; rather,
programs must honor the multiple players in a child’s life and
coordinate with an array of community services that foster
children’s healthy development. Examples of programmatic
alignment include the linkages that early childhood programs
are making to assure their children have access to routine
health and developmental screenings as well as the follow-up
services they need. Other examples of programmatic alignment
include the development of outreach services to children
who may not have access to a formal child care setting. Often
such services are based nearer to the home and emphasize
care, education, and nutrition.

3. Policy Alignment. What the society does to institutionalize a
commitment to transition must become embedded as a necessary
and natural component of an early childhood policy
agenda. Policymakers and those advising them must recognize
that a commitment to young children must not stop
with the provision of services−it must support the quality
and the continuity of those services. Policy alignment embraces
the laws, regulations, acts, and legal provisions that
govern or affect services for young children, including financing,
accountability, and professional development policies.
Specific examples of policy alignment are efforts that
create continuity among: requirements for teaching young
children irrespective of where teachers teach; salaries and
benefits for comparable work and experience across child
education and care settings; requirements for care and
school attendance that span genders and locales; and consolidated
databases that contain information about young
children that enables governments to chronicle the overall
progress of the nations’ children.
Repositioning Transitions
Armed with a more comprehensive and more nuanced understanding
of transitions, advocates for young children can take
the next step, moving from a focus on programs alone to one
concerned with institutionalizing transitions as a component of
all early childhood development efforts. Examples of global efforts
now exist in a helpful compendium of international and
United States-based transition initiatives that can be accessed
at: http://blogs.tc.columbia.edu/transitions/. An analysis of
these innovative transition efforts suggests that they exist at the
local, regional, and country levels; that they address diverse audiences,
embracing children who may be traditionally exempt
from such efforts (children with disabilities, children whose
home language is not the majority language of the country); and
that they focus primarily on pedagogical and programmatic
alignment.
While they stand as viable and implementable examples of how
transitions can be affected and effective, there is more work to
be done to assure that transitions are integrated into the policy
apparatus. Some countries are beginning to recognize the importance
of effective transitions to young children’s development
and are providing fiscal support to assist municipalities with
their efforts to promote alignment and continuity. Others are
consolidating their approaches to early education so that the authority
and accountability regarding services for young children
are lodged within a single ministry.
Early educators cannot do this alone, however. Their efforts
need to be supported by caring foundations, governments, and
organizations. Long recognizing the importance of continuity to
children’s social, intellectual, and cultural development, the Aga
Khan Foundation is one such entity that has taken a leadership
role in fostering diverse and exemplary transition efforts for
young children in extremely low resource environments. These
transition efforts include both innovative and holistic programming
as well as advocacy for more supportive policies. Standing
as a pioneer and leader, the Aga Khan Foundation has set the
pace for investing in human capital and exemplary transition
projects globally. Through this laudable work and that of other
foundations (e.g., Kellogg, Bernard van Leer, Foundation for
Child Development), multi-national organizations (e.g., UNICEF,
World Bank, UNESCO, World Bank, Inter-American Development
Bank), and governments (e.g., Australia, Bangladesh, England,
Jordon, Philippines, Tanzania, Zanzibar), we now know
that achieving a new kind of transition is not simply necessary
but is possible.
For the future, those who care about the well-being of young children
and their families must be vigilant in advancing a robust
reconceptualization of transitions, one that highlights three types
of alignment: pedagogy, programs, and policies. Working together,
they must also remember that focusing on only one kind of alignment
will be less effective in evoking durable and comprehensive
results for young children, their families, and the programs,
schools, and organizations that serve them. Finally, in all that
early childhood supporters do, communicate, write, evaluate, and
advocate, transition must be repositioned on the public agenda so
that it achieves its rightful place as a key to achieving the quality,
continuity, and equity that young children across the globe need
and deserve.

Biographical Information for Contributors of Articles
Robert Myers
Sharon Lynn Kagan
Dr. Robert Myers is an independent researcher and consultant
and founder of the Consultative Group on Early Childhood Care
for Development. He has a Doctorate in Economics of Education-Comparative
Education from the University of Chicago. He
has conducted consulting work for the World Bank, UNICEF,
UNESCO, USAID, the Aga Khan Foundation, the Inter-American
Development Bank, and the Bernard van Leer Foundation. He
has evaluated early childhood programs in Peru, Kenya, India
and Nicaragua. Dr. Myers has co-edited two books and authored
four major publications. During the last 20 years, his writing has
concentrated on topics related to programming for early childhood
care and development. Dr. Myers served six-year terms as a
Board member of the Comparative and International Education
Society.
Dr. Sharon Lynn Kagan is the Virginia and Leonard Marx Professor
of Early Childhood and Family Policy and Co-Director of the National
Center for Children and Families at Teachers College, Columbia
University, and Professor Adjunct at Yale University's Child
Study Center. Dr. Kagan, recognized nationally and internationally
for her work related to the care and education of young children
and their families, is a frequent consultant to the White House,
Congress, the National Governors’ Association, the US Departments
of Education and Health and Human Services, numerous
states, foundations, corporations, and professional associations,
and serves on over 40 national boards or panels. In addition to
these contributions, she is recognized for her unique scholarship
and analytic work in over 225 publications that has helped the
field define school readiness, the early childhood system, dimensions
of collaboration, and leadership in early care and education.
She received her Doctorate of Education in Curriculum and Teaching
from Teachers College, Columbia University.

S t a t e m e n t o f Fi n a n c i a l Po s i t i o n
We remain very grateful for the commitment of our many supporters. Our contributions grew thanks in part to strong support
to our response to the Pakistan flood emergency. We continue to enjoy success with direct government support of our programs
in places like East Africa, Pakistan and Afghanistan. Contributions from private sources remain our largest source of program
funds at 64 percent. Operating expenses are funded by a grant from His Highness the Aga Khan. Therefore, no donations from
individuals, foundations and corporations are used for operating expenses.
The financial results depicted on pages 62 and 63 are derived from the AKF USA December 31, 2010, audited consolidated
financial statements performed by PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP. AKF USA’s complete, audited financial statement may be obtained
by writing to the Chief Financial Officer, Aga Khan Foundation U.S.A., 1825 K Street, NW, Suite 901, Washington, DC 20006.
Noordin Moloo
Chief Financial Officer
As of December 31, 2010 and December 31, 2009
As of December 31, 2010 and December 31, 2009
Dollars Dollars in Thousands in Thousands
2010 2010 2009 2009
Assets
Cash and cash equivalents $53,987 $46,715
Investments 8,650 7,727
Accounts receivable and other current assets 209 459
Donor agency receivables 422 711
Receivables from affiliates 4,061 3,013
Contributions receivable, net 30,684 40,290
Fixed assets:
Property held for charitable purposes 87,446 87,446
Other fixed assets 333 580
Less accumulated depreciation -12,151 -11,090
Fixed assets, net 75,629 76,936
Total assets $173,641 $175,850
Liabilities and and net net assets assets
Liabilities:
Accounts payable and accrued liabilities $1,609 $836
Payable to affiliates 6,289 1,628
Deferred revenues 3,697 2,671
Total Liabilities 11,595 5,135
Net Assets
162,046 170,715
Total liabilities and net assets $173,641 $175,850

S t a t e m e n t o f Fi n a n c i a l A c t i v i t i e s
2010
Sources of Funds
Use of Funds
For the years ended December 31, 31, 2010 2010 and and 2009 2009
Dollars in in Thousands
2010 2009
Revenues:
Contributions $18,391 $15,467
Federal grants 9,292 10,432
Other grants 985 3,252
Investment income 200 178
Total Revenues 28,868 29,329
Expenses:
1
Program grants 30,313 57,899
General and administrative expenses:
Salaries 2,299 2,054
Legal, accounting and consulting 165 193
Travel 154 128
Doubtful pledges provision 79 -146
General office 3
Taxes and licenses
Premises 314 289
Resource development & communications 127 97
Total general and administrative expenses 4,441 3,019
Fundraising and public education events 1,476 1,094
Depreciation and amortization 1,308 1,288
Total expenses 37,538 63,300
Change in net assets -8,670 -33,971
Net assets at beginning of year 170,715 204,676
Net assets at end of year $162,046 $170,706
Notes:
1
Program grants decreased as three-year campaign in support of AKDN institutions ended in FY09.

I n s t i t u t i o n a l C o l l a b o r a t i o n s
The Foundation works with many institutional partners across the world. It also works closely with national,
provincial and district governments in the countries where it operates. Each year, government agencies and
private foundations join together with AKF USA to move mountains and build dreams. The Foundation’s efforts
to alleviate poverty, hunger, illiteracy and disease would not be possible without their unwavering support. Our
2010 institutional partners include:
Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation
Flora Family Foundation
The Ford Foundation
International Youth Foundation
Microsoft Corporation
United States Agency for International Development
United States Department of Agriculture
United States Department of State
United States Environmental Protection Agency
The William and Flora Hewlett Foundation
The Aga Khan Development Network has agreements and protocols with the following countries and organizations:
Afghanistan, Asian Development Bank, Bangladesh, Canada, Egypt, the European Commission, France, Germany,
India, Ivory Coast, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kyrgyz Republic, Mali, Mozambique, Norway, Pakistan, Portugal, Russia,
Syria, Tajikistan, Tanzania, Uganda, United Kingdom and the United Nations (United Nationals Development
Programme and World Health Organization).

C u r r e n t P r o j e c t s
Afghanistan Special Fund
Aging Gracefully Initiative
Chitral Child Survival Programme in Pakistan
Community-based Disaster Risk Reduction in Afghanistan
Community-based Savings Groups in Bihar, India
Cultural Revival - Nizamuddin Basti in Delhi, India
East Africa Quality in Early Learning Phase 1
Education for Marginalized Children in Kenya, Phase II
Educational Quality Improvement Programme 2: School Effectiveness Study for Mozambique
Empower and Equip Zanzibari Youth
Escola Agraria de Bilibiza
Khana Loan Initiative – Housing Microfinance
Learning Centers for Parents and Children Replication
Links to Learning: Education Support to Pakistan
Mali Area Development Program
Microinsurance Initiative in Pakistan and Tanzania
NGO Sustainability Index
Partnership for Advancing Community Education in Afghanistan
Professional Development Internship Program
Relief and Early Recovery Program in Pakistan
Remote Access for Health Professionals with Aga Khan Health Board
Scaling-Up Market-based Mechanisms for Building and Construction Improvement Programme Product Distribution
Social Safety Net with Youth Support Services
Sombeza Community Knowledge Center
Sombeza Water and Sanitation Improvement Program in Kenya
Strengthening Sub-National Governance in Afghanistan
Tajik Scholarship Program
Water and Sanitation Improvement Program for Kinango, Kaloleni and Kilifi Districts in Coast Province Kenya
Women Empowered through Citizen Community Boards in Pakistan
Zanzibar Madrasa Resource Center
Zanzibar Teacher Upgrading by Radio

B o a r d , N a t i o n a l C o m m i t t e e a n d S t a f f
Board of Directors
His Highness the Aga Khan, Chairman and Founder
Prince Amyn Aga Khan
Maître André Ardoin
Guillaume de Spoelberch
AKF USA National Committee
Aziz Valliani, Chairman
Mohammad Ashraf Ramji, Vice Chairman
Dr. Mahmood Eboo
Zamila Karimi
Sultana Mangalji
Dr. Eboo Patel
Alnoor Shivji
Jehan Velji
AKF USA Staff
Executive Office
Mirza Jahani, Chief Executive Officer
Evan Gill, Executive Research Analyst
Sharon Bayolo, Executive Assistant
Finance & Donor Services
Noordin Mooloo, Chief Financial Officer
Nazlin Pepermintwala, Finance and Administration Controller
Karim Juma, Donor Services and Administration Manager
Innocent Manishimwe, Grants Officer
Lydie Curney-Boa, General Ledger Accountant
Shahdil Shivji, Donor Services Staff Accountant
Asad Panjwani, Donor Services Assistant
Nikolai Kosmynin, Finance Assistant
Paul Michael, Donor Services Administrative Assistant
Sanam Vazir, Accounting Associate
Communications & Resource Development
Charles Sheerin, Director of Communications and Resource
Development
Martha Sipple, Communications and Public Affairs Manager
Shelina Gwaduri, Resource Development and Volunteer
Services Manager
Jennifer Graham, Resource Development Officer
Jay Gilliam, Communications Assistant
Justine Feighery, Resource Development Assistant
Programs
Joanne Trotter, Director of Programs
Caryn Sweeney, Manager, Program Development
Leanne Sedowski, Program Officer
Linda Ulqini, Program Officer
Andrea Wilson, Program Officer
Luke Bostian, Program Associate
Sarah Comer, Program Associate
Natalie Ross, Education Program Assistant
Opposite page: Tajik school children living
near Khorog now walk to school on a road
that was repaired by the local Village Organization.
This endeavor was the villagers’
first infrastructure project as education is
high on people’s agenda once food security
improves.

Photography:
ACDI/VOCA, Luke Bostian, Sandra Calligaro,
Pierre Claquin, Lucas Cuervo
Moura, Ebrahim Esmail, Focus Humanitarian
Assistance, Karim Jan, Nadirshah
Jivani, Thomas Kelly, Pervaiz Khan, Ali
Naemi, Gary Otte, Amit Pasricha, Zahur
Ramji, Jean-Luc Ray, Jamie Rector, Pat
Scheid, Rajendra Shaw, Nafisa
Shekhova, Wendy Stone, Tara Todras-
Whitehall, Jacques Toureille, US Department
of Defense, Winifred Westergard
© 2011 Aga Khan Foundation U.S.A.

AGA KHAN FOUNDATION U.S.A.
An agency of the Aga Khan Development Network
1825 K Street, N.W., Suite 901, Washington, D.C. 20006
Telephone: (202) 293-2537 Facsimile: (202) 785-1752 Email: info@akfusa.org
www.akdn.org