Since the 1990s, international aid organisations, including those from Europe, have increasingly shaped literacy education reforms in low- and middle-income countries through the promotion of ‘evidence-based’ and comparative policy approaches. These reforms often prioritise school-based interventions and measurable learning outcomes while overlooking the broader socio-cultural contexts of education (Niño-Zarazúa 2016). This donor-driven orientation has generated sustained critiques regarding aid effectiveness, sustainability, and the relevance of externally driven education policies for addressing locally grounded challenges (Silova et al. 2025). These concerns are particularly salient for European education research, given the prominent role of European donors, policy frameworks, and intellectual traditions in global education governance and policy transfer.

Central to these critiques are debates about the politics of knowledge production in education policy, especially given that when early literacy reforms encounter political and socio-cultural plurality they adopt reductionist approaches (Jackson et al. 2025) rooted in Western epistemological dominance (Silova et al., 2025). Scholars argue that such approaches marginalise Indigenous Knowledge Systems (IKS) by framing policy problems and solutions in ways that privilege Western knowledge while rendering Indigenous epistemologies invisible or irrelevant (Mignolo 2009; Huaman 2022). Rather than focusing exclusively on literacy outcomes, this scholarship calls for closer examination of policy processes, assumptions, and practices that sustain epistemic hierarchies.

Responding to the limited empirical research on the politics of knowledge production in early literacy policy (Hackett et al. 2020), this paper presents a qualitative case study of the United States Agency for International Development’s (USAID) early literacy initiatives in Zambia (2011 to 2013). The study examines how USAID engaged the Ministry of Education (MOE) during the policy process and how this engagement laid the groundwork for the adoption of Early Grade Reading (EGR) policies. The analysis is guided by three research questions: (1) What were the EGR policies promoted by USAID in Zambia? (2) What strategies did USAID use to soften decision makers in support of these policies? and (3) How were Indigenous Knowledge Systems silenced within the policy process?

The study adopts a critical policy perspective that foregrounds power relations, knowledge hierarchies, and policy entrepreneurship. Drawing on Nakata’s (2007) concept of the Cultural Interface and Kingdon’s (2014) Multiple Streams Approach, the paper analyses how donor-driven interventions operate within complex policy environments characterised by intersecting Indigenous and Western knowledge systems. Particular attention is paid to ‘softening-up’ strategies used by policy entrepreneurs to shape problem definitions, promote actionable policy ideas, build coalitions, and marginalise alternative forms of knowledge.

By analysing USAID’s role in Zambia’s early literacy policy process, this paper contributes to European and international education policy debates on aid effectiveness, policy transfer, and the decolonisation of education research. It highlights how well-intentioned literacy reforms can reproduce epistemic inequalities by excluding Indigenous Knowledge Systems from meaningful participation in policy design and decision making. The paper argues that addressing global literacy challenges requires greater attention to policy processes and stronger recognition of Indigenous knowledge as a legitimate and valuable component of education reform.

This study employs a qualitative case study design, and data were generated from early literacy policy documents, four semi-structured interviews with Indigenous policy actors, and seven sharing circles (an Indigenous form of focus group discussion) with early literacy teachers in Zambia’s education sector. The analysis is informed by two theoretical frameworks: Nakata's (2007) of the Cultural Interface (CI) and Kingdon (2014) Multiple Streams Approach (MSA). The Cultural Interface conceptualises the policy space as a dynamic site where Indigenous Knowledge Systems and Western Knowledge Systems intersect and are continuously negotiated. This framework enables analysis of how Indigenous actors navigate donor-driven policy processes while operating within historically shaped epistemic constraints. In the Zambian context, the CI provides a lens for understanding how external actors prioritise Western knowledge while positioning Indigenous decision makers as technical implementers rather than epistemic contributors. The Multiple Streams Approach is used to analyse policy change by examining the interaction between problem, policy, and political streams. Within this framework, USAID is conceptualised as a policy entrepreneur due to its financial resources, technical expertise, and sustained engagement with the Ministry of Education. The concept of ‘softening-up’ is central to the analysis, capturing how policy entrepreneurs prepare decision makers to accept particular policy ideas through persuasion, framing, and coalition-building rather than overt coercion. Data analysis focused on identifying four ‘softening up’ strategies: First, ‘the policy framing and interpretation strategy’ shapes how policy issues and solutions are presented to decision-makers (Kingdon, 2014). This implies that policy entrepreneurs create a common language and integrate existing ideas to align with the values and priorities of local stakeholders (Meijerink and Huitema 2010). Second, ‘the actionable ideas strategy’ involves creating feasible solutions that appear politically and technically viable, pressuring decision-makers to act by presenting the issue as urgent (Mintrom 1997). This builds trust in the entrepreneur’s leadership and resources. Third, the coalition building and collaboration is a strategy where entrepreneurs establish relationships with key decision-makers and networks, helping to maintain momentum and create mutually beneficial partnerships (Sus 2024). Silencing was analysed in three forms—textual, verbal, and conceptual—referring respectively to the absence of Indigenous knowledge in policy documents, its omission from policy discussions, and its erasure or replacement within dominant ideological frameworks (Nakata 2007a). By combining CI and MSA, the study offers an analytically robust approach to examining how donor-led literacy reforms shape policy outcomes while marginalising Indigenous Knowledge Systems.

The findings demonstrate that USAID employed a range of softening-up strategies that shaped Zambia’s early literacy policy agenda and facilitated the adoption of Early Grade Reading policies while marginalising Indigenous Knowledge Systems. By framing its interventions as technical assistance and evidence-based solutions, USAID positioned itself as a neutral expert and reinforced the dominance of Western Knowledge Systems within the policy process. Using Nakata’s Cultural Interface, the analysis shows how Indigenous decision makers were positioned as apolitical actors, despite their active participation in navigating donor-driven reforms. While the Ministry of Education engaged willingly with USAID’s initiatives, this engagement occurred within epistemic boundaries that limited the recognition of Indigenous knowledge as a legitimate foundation for policy design. The promotion of EGR as an urgent and technically sound solution further reinforced perceptions that local actors lacked the necessary expertise to define literacy problems and solutions independently. Although USAID leveraged existing Ministry structures to create a sense of local ownership, its fragmented and top-down implementation approach constrained participatory engagement and excluded Indigenous Knowledge Systems from meaningful consideration. The silencing of IKS thus emerged not only from donor strategies but also from institutional dynamics that favoured externally validated knowledge. These findings contribute to European and international debates on aid effectiveness, policy transfer, and the decolonisation of education research. The study shows the need for education reforms that move beyond outcome-focused models and engage more critically with policy processes, knowledge hierarchies and equal collaboration with local actors. It concludes by calling for stronger recognition of Indigenous Knowledge Systems in early literacy policy and for decision makers in aid-recipient contexts to actively challenge epistemic dominance in donor-led education reforms.

Hackett, Abigail, Maggie MacLure, and Kate Pahl. 2020. ‘Literacy and Language as Material Practices: Re-Thinking Social Inequality in Young Children’s Literacies’. Journal of Early Childhood Literacy 20 (1): 3–12. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468798420904909. Huaman, Elizabeth Sumida. 2022. ‘How Indigenous Scholarship Changes the Field: Pluriversal Appreciation, Decolonial Aspirations, and Comparative Indigenous Education’. Comparative Education Review 66 (3): 391–416. https://doi.org/10.1086/720442. Jackson, Davena, Wintre Foxworth Johnson, Katherine K. Frankel, and Ashley Houston-King. 2025. ‘Preserving Integrative and Humanizing Literacies: A Commentary on the Current Literacy Debates and the Narrowing of Literacy Instruction’. Reading Research Quarterly 60 (1): e594. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.594. Kingdon, John W. 2014. Agendas, Alternatives, and Public Policies. 2nd edition. Pearson Custom Library. Pearson. Meijerink, Sander, and Dave Huitema. 2010. ‘Policy Entrepreneurs and Change Strategies: Lessons from Sixteen Case Studies of Water Transitions around the Globe’. Ecology and Society 15 (2). https://www.jstor.org/stable/26268135. Mignolo, Walter D. 2009. ‘Epistemic Disobedience, Independent Thought and Decolonial Freedom’. Theory, Culture & Society 26 (7–8): 159–81. https://doi.org/10.1177/0263276409349275. Mintrom, Michael. 1997. ‘Policy Entrepreneurs and the Diffusion of Innovation’. American Journal of Political Science 41 (3): 738–70. https://doi.org/10.2307/2111674. Nakata, Martin. 2007a. Disciplining the Savages, Savaging the Disciplines. Aboriginal Studies Press. Niño-Zarazúa, Miguel. 2016. ‘Aid, Education Policy, and Development’. International Journal of Educational Development, Aid, Education Policy, and Development, vol. 48 (May): 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijedudev.2015.12.002. Silova, Iveta, Hikaru Komatsu, and Jeremy Rappleye. 2025. 1: Unlearning Development: Education in the Era of Planetary Emergency. https://www.elgaronline.com/edcollchap-oa/book/9781035337798/chapter1.xml. Sus, Monika. 2024. ‘Exploring the Dynamics of Policy Change in EU Security and Defence: Policy Entrepreneurs behind the Strategic Compass’. West European Politics 47 (4): 942–66. https://doi.org/10.1080/01402382.2023.2232704.