Yusuf Sayed

Terra Sprague

This is an Author’s Original Manuscript of an article submitted for consideration in Compare [the exclusive right to publish residing with Taylor &Francis, copyright ÌÇÐÄ´«Ã½].

As the 2015 target date for achieving the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) approaches, there are a growing number of processes, preparations and debates on what a post-2015 agenda and framework will look like. The UNDG (as chaired by UNDP) is leading the planning of efforts to catalyse a “global conversation” on post-2015 through a series of some 100 national consultations and 11 global thematic consultations. The aim of these consultations has been to bring together a broad range of stakeholders to review progress on the MDGs and to discuss the options for a new framework.Ìý The overall global thematic consultation on education is co-led by UNICEF and UNESCO, with support from the Government of Canada, the Government of Germany and the Government of the Republic of Senegal. The education consultations focus on the progress to date as well as the possible scope and shape of education within the post-2015 agenda.

The purpose of this special edition of the Compare Forum is to contribute to this debate in relation to ideas about how progress towards greater education quality and equity can be achieved, including how and what goals and targets need to be defined and owned and how governments can be made accountable for them.

We begin the edition with a summary of the post-2015 education consultations co-led by UNESCO and UNICEF. The contribution looks back to the 2001 Millennium Development Goals, informed by the Millennium Declaration. It notes that while the MDGs have shown that a set of clear and measurable targets can be an important driver of change;the formulation of the post-2015 agenda must follow a different approach. As such, the United Nations system has facilitated an unprecedented series of consultations with hundreds of thousands of people the world over to seek their views on a new development agenda to build on the successes of the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs). This global conversation responds to a growing call for active participation in shaping the ‘world we want’. Taking place well before governments sit down to negotiate and finalize such a new agenda, the consultations underway provide evidence and perspectives to governments on the challenges people face in improving their lives and those of their families and communities. The Thematic Consultation on Education followed just this process – gathering the voices of over 22,000 people with a view to developing a holistic vision of how best to reflect education, training and learning in the post-2015 agenda. What emerged was a consensus that whatever type of structure the post-2015 agenda may take, education must claim an explicit goal, focusing on ‘Equitable, Quality Education and Lifelong Learning for All’ if we are to overcome current and future political, economic, technological, health and environmental challenges and to ensure the possibility of a path of sustainable development.

As we move closer to the goal of Education for All, we need to be increasingly aware of what kind of education is appropriate for everybody, and especially what restrictions the wrong type of education imposes. Turner cautions against an overly prescriptive education agenda post-2015 as the ‘the skill sets required will be as varied and various as the niches for which those individuals are destined’. He also reminds us that education is ‘an individual passion’ and we should avoid a form of specification in which the Post-2015 world ‘freezes schools as they are today’.

While a Ìýsome of the contributions to this special issue of the Compare Forum approach the Post-2015 debates from such a holistic perspective concerning the purpose of education today and for the future, others raise more specific, sector-focussed issues.Ìý These contributions ask questions and pose suggestions as to the position of certain aspects of education, for example secondary and higher education, or the role of teachers, within a post-2015 landscape. In doing so, they not only call attention to the role of these respective sectors, but they highlight the contribution of education to the wider post-2015 development framework.Ìý In this regard, the issues of education and emergencies are significant, and here we find two contributions on this multifaceted theme.

Smith, in his piece on education and peace building, overviews key initiatives to develop frameworks that address conflict through sustainable peace building using a social justice perspective.Ìý In doing so, he helpfully unpacks some of the concepts from the education in conflict cannon, providing a helpful entry point for all readers to engage with these debates.Ìý Smith further draws attention to some of the key documents and components of the overall post-2015 development process, including the High Level Panel report and the role that goals, targets and indicators continue to play within the development framework.Ìý He describes the UN Secretary-General’s Education First initiative, and describes how this, ‘places a particular emphasis on securing the right to education for children in conflict-affected countries.’ Smith concludes that social justice must play a role in the post-2015 development framework, suggesting that ‘the inclusion of post-2015 targets related to equity and social cohesion may go some way in recognising the crucial role of education and social development in sustainable peace building.’

Paulson and Shields also write from the education in conflict and emergencies perspective.Ìý Drawing upon quantitative research, they point to a recent challenge to the traditional advocacy position of the education in emergencies community.Ìý This challenge argues that education appears to improve during warfare.Ìý In order to respond to this, and its implications for post-2015 planning, Paulson and Shields describe the debate around the quantitative evidence and describe initial findings from their research, which uses a multilevel modelling technique to investigate the impact of conflict on education.Ìý They conclude that a richer understandings of fragility is necessary, and that this presents an opportunity ‘to build a stronger and more theoretically informed evidence base.’ Key to this, they suggest, is a need to consider state capacity and political will, and that if addressed, this can serve to benefit the causes of many education related post-2015 priorities.

Another perspective on the debates around post-2015 education is the vital role played by teachers.Ìý Shrestha highlights that, while the High Level Panel report gives a nod to the quantity of teachers needed, there is a lack of targets or indicators regarding their training or effectiveness.Ìý Drawing upon focus group discussions undertaken by Voluntary Service Overseas across five countries, he points to the ‘insufficiency of well-trained teachers and lack of good governance and accountability as major issues in current Education For All (EFA) goals.’Ìý A lack of focus upon teachers, an inequitable distribution of well-trained teachers and a learning crisis in teachers’ content knowledge are three key areas to which this contribution draws attention.Ìý An argument for the need of indicators in this area is made and suggestions are put forth, with the conclusion that ‘Without indicators such as these, it seems hard to effectively hold governments and donors accountable to their commitment to invest in well-trained and effective teachers.’

Unterhalter, Peppin Vaughan and Smail also discuss the quality of teaching and learning by way of entering the post-2015 debate from the secondary and higher education perspective.Ìý Teaching and learning quality are but one of five distinct topics that are picked up in this piece, which summarises recent British Council funded research about secondary and higher education approaches which have appeared within the post-2015 discussion. Unlike others who argue fervently for particular goals, targets and indicators, Unterhalter and colleagues are ‘not convinced that a target or an indicator on secondary and higher education is an appropriate direction to take with regard to the post-2015 agenda.’ ­­In addressing these points, the authors also comment on the processes associated with the MDGs, reminding us that, ‘the most prominent agencies working on education and development, have related but distinct positions’. They further outline some of the disconnections within the MDGs and argue that without attention to these, ‘development assistance will flow in fragmented directions’.

Inclusion has been a significant theme running across the whole of the post-2015 deliberations, beyond the education sector debates, so it is not surprising to find it embedded within the education discussions themselves.Ìý This theme, similar to the focus upon sustainable development, as addressed by Barrett, perhaps represents ways in which education debates can break out of the traditional silos typically seen in development approaches, providing a cross-cutting and multidisciplinary way forward.Ìý Tungaraza, Sutherland and Stack argue that the failure to meet MDG 2 by 2015 comes down to difficulties in the implementation of processes, and that diversity of learners, teachers and societies has not been sufficiently taken into account.Ìý They address three specific questions: is there a shared understanding of what Universal Education is;are current Universal Education systems equitable for all, and;are current Universal Education systems inclusive? They argue that the work undertaken in education to date has, ‘served some well and further marginalised others’ and urge us as educationalists to take some time to consider the type of global education that might be suitable for the world’s children, keeping in mind the need to build sustainable futures.

Barrett’s paper argues that the focus on Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) as the post-2015 development framework represents the ‘the most significant re-balancing of the notion of international development since the concept of international development emerged in the 1950s’ though it has not been strongly enough articulated in the education debate. Whilst welcoming the post-2015 emphasis on quality, equity and a more expanded vision of education, she bemoans the failure to look at higher education and a narrowing of the learning agenda to achievable targets in literacy, numeracy and skills which may end up privileging the ‘international industry in measuring learning outcomes, which has its centres of expertise mainly in wealthy countries in the global North increasing the imperative to argue for local determination and debate of learning goals. She argues that the SDG agenda call for an expanded vision of learning as well as paying attention to the ‘negative face of education’. She concludes that developing a vision and practice of ‘good quality relevant education in the twenty-first century will require greater engagement with other development goals, including the environmental dimension of sustainable development’.

Bunwaree’s article summarises the Commonwealth Ministers’ Recommendations for the Post-2015 Development Framework for Education focusing on three concerns of access, quality, and equity. The Commonwealth Ministers propose a combined framework with three principal goals supplemented by six detailed subordinate goals that would build on EFA. They argue that this ‘single, two-tier structure would allow the alignment of headline and specific goals and reduce the implementation and monitoring burden on countries’. The three principal goals include a commitment to every child completing a full cycle of a minimum of 9 years basic education, a commitment to strategically expanding post-basic education, and a commitment to the elimination of differences in educational outcomes among learners. The six subordinate Goals relate to ECCE, an ‘expanded vision of access’, successful learning achievement, ‘strategic expansion’ of post-basic and tertiary level education,Ìý eradication of illiteracy and innumeracy, education opportunities for young people and adults who have not successfully completed 9 years basic education, the elimination of disparities in participation in education andÌý adequate infrastructure for learning. In addition, several Crosscutting themes of Education in Emergencies, Migration, Gender and Education for Sustainable Development are noted as important for the post-2015-education agenda.

Alhawsawi and Hanna summarise the deliberations of a post graduate student forum on the post-2015 education and development agenda. This Forum was hosted under the auspices of the ÌÇÐÄ´«Ã½ and the United Kingdom Forum for International Education and Training (UKFIET), and hosted by the Centre for International Education at the University of Sussex. They identify several core priorities for the post-2015 agenda. These include the need for home language instruction, a commitment to a comprehensive approach to gender equality, a focus on rural development as well as on societies affected by crisis or conflict. The forum also identified the need for a comprehensive focus on sustainable development and the need for a post-2015 development framework infused with sustainability-related values. The issue of a more comprehensive approach to quality was a key debate at the workshop. Quality, it is argued, is more than a narrow and instrumental view on literacy and numeracy outcomes and that ‘most of the indicators for the attainment of the goals were limited, particularly in the case of the MDGs as they excluded quality and learning, which did not exist initially, as in the case of the EFA goals’. Integrating and harmonising two overlapping sets of goals found in MDGs and EFA was identified as a key priority. It was noted that many countries signed the UN Declaration and endorsed EFA goals though they are not legally binding;rather, they are non-enforceable moral commitments. As such, questions were raised about the meanings and status of such frameworks for accelerating education progress for all. Lastly the day conference notedÌý the need to consider power issues in deliberation noting that ‘the majority of the organisations involved in the evaluating and re-engineering of education and development goals were organisations from the North that focussed mainly on the South;there is a lack of input from the South in discussions relating to the post-2015 agenda’. In summary, the students Forum was an important milestone for ÌÇÐÄ´«Ã½ students to articulate their views about the post-2015 educational agenda pointing to the need for ‘relevant, quality and equitable education, gender parity in education, the need for clarity and contextual considerations in defining indicators, the need to address North-South power differentials, and the development of a more streamlined single set of goals’.

Soudien’s article discusses issues of ownership of the post-2015 education and development agenda raised by Al-Hawsawi and Hanna arguing that while debates about the post-2015 agenda are intense, experts and agencies in the Global North dominate it. Thus notwithstanding the positives in relation to a focus on quality the process remains ‘one of global power, typically those of the north versus the south, and of national level politics, those between contending role- players in the confines of a country, are to be mediated through the hierarchical bureaucracy of the United Nations and its structures such as UNESCO and UNICEF. Soudien also criticises some of the substantive content aspects of the post-2015 education agenda in relation to the notion of education quality. He argues that while a focus on quality is welcome, good education cannot be reduced to narrow instrumental skills and should not take a definition of quality which does mistakenly conflate benchmarking exercises with quality. He argues that quality is more than benchmarking on standardised testing and must include other areas of learning and skills which are not easily amenable to measures such as comprehensive sexuality education and education for sustainable development. He argues that a post-2015 agenda should acknowledge, critically engage, and voice the concern of the marginalised. To this end he endorses ‘citizen assemblies everywhere around the globe’ which are deliberative spaces where information and expertise about the futures available so that choices are made in a ‘clear-eyed way’.

The special edition ends by considering the formidable issues involved in measuring progress – any goals which are agreed in education have to be translated into meaningful and monitorable indicators. Motivan’s article addresses this dimension arguing that measurement should be based on a clearly articulated policy framework based on a robust understanding of key concepts. He notes specific indicators which have already begun to be suggested by different bodies and interest groups cautioning that they need to be clearly defined to avoid the problems faced in the measurement of the current MDGs, without detracting attention from developing clearly articulated priorities and commitments. Two principles are proposed as a way forward. The first is that there is a need for a ‘broader and more holistic framework which encompasses the education sector and its constituencies’. The second is that any measures developed should be driven by national governments’ needs and be focused on what countries considerÌý important and valuable.Ìý He also draws attention to the need to ensure that there is a ‘common language’ for ‘conceptualizing and measuring the equity of countries’ education systems’ with respect to learning.Ìý Motivans reports on the work of the Learning Metrics Taskforce which has begun to develop indicators for measuring learning identifying six broad areas of measurement. He concludes by cautioning against a quick-fix approach to measuring goals noting that ultimately long-term institutional change is needed, developing national government capacity to measure progress in education, particularly for the poor and marginalised.

This special issue attempts to represent a range of voices and perspectives about the post-2015 education agenda. However, we do note the absence of attention to pre-primary and early childhood care and education.Ìý This sector has certainly been afforded priority in the High Level Panel report (UN 2013a) and will undoubtedly continue to feature in forthcoming debates about the post-2015 education landscape given its importance in reducing as well as entrenching inequities in society.Ìý The contributions also reflect a shift away from a narrow focus on primary education as is the case with the current global education agenda reflecting the fact that much global and measurable success has been gained in the primary sector.

The contributions to this issue raise many issues and tensions which will need to be addressed in the coming period as more concrete targets and indicators are detailed. This includes which level of education should be a priority (ECCE, secondary, vocational, tertiary);at what level (global, regional and national) should these targets and indicators be set;which body should be responsible for monitoring progress;what should be the status of any post-2015 development framework;should the post-2015 agenda be arranged as a series of sectoral priorities as the current MDG framework is or should it be more thematic in nature? It is these and other issues which is the heart of the specification of a post-2015 education and development agenda.

The post-215 education consultations has resulted in numerous discussion forums and the publication of many proposals for the future world. This includes the High Level Panel’ Report entitled ‘A New Global Partnership: Eradicate Poverty and Transform Economies through Sustainable Development, ,Ìý and the Interim Report of the Open Working Group on Sustainable Development Goals (http://sustainabledevelopment.un.org). Most recently, the United Nations Development Group (UNDG) released the report of its consultations called the A million Voices: the World We Want: A sustainable future with Dignity for All. This reports on the perspectives ‘ from over 1 million people around the globe’. It is based on almost a yearlong consultation including 88 national consultations, 11 thematic dialogues (of which the education consultation is oneÌý summarised in this edition), and through the MY World global survey. As member states consult on the shape and content of a successor framework to the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) beyond 2015, it is these voices that need to be heard to ensure that the post-2015 world is designed by people and government from the Global South and whose voice is paramount in achieving a just and equitable future. The post-2015 development agenda is too important be simply the voice of development experts and special interest groups and organisation, mainly from the North. Ultimately, it is governments in the Global South who will have to deliver and be held accountable for delivering on any post-2015 education and development framework.

It is evident across all the contributions in this special edition of the Compare Forum that education should feature strongly in the post-2015 development framework. This is not surprising given the voices included. Yet some fear that education may not remain core to the post-2015 development agenda. There has been criticism by some that the High Level Panel has perhaps not prioritised education strongly enough (Packer 2013). If this is indeed the case, then the education community, particularly those from the Global South do need to voice a louder position in all the reports and deliberations concerning the post-2015 discussions. The post-2015 education development cannot simply be a ‘Northern Tsunami and Southern Ripple’ (King and Palmer 2013)

There remains much to be done before the post-2015 development framework is complete and the coming months promise to be an interesting period as these continue to be shaped. In some ways, this special issue highlights the fact that as a field, we face some lack of clarity regarding the Post-2015 architecture including how exactly any MDG type Framework fits with an Education for All approach. None the lessÌý there is a clear and strident call for a harmonised framework which places education at the heart of any development agenda in whichÌý the eradication of Ìýinequalities betweenÌý and within countries is core to any pro-poor development agenda. The elimination of poverty and the eradication of inequality should remain the driving force of any post-2015 education and development framework, and for this, the voices of the Global South need to be most heard in any future discussions.

References

King, K and Palmer, R (2013) Post-2015 Agendas: Northern Tsunami, Southern Ripple? The Case Of Education And Skills, Norrag Working Paper 4

Packer, S. (2013) The High Level Panel Report – The Place of Education. UKFIET Community of Practice. 21 August 2013. [accessed 5 September 2013]

United Nations. 2013a. A New Global Partnership: Eradicate Poverty and Transform Economies through Sustainable Development. The Report of the High-Level Panel of Eminent Persons on the Post-2015 Development Agenda. New York: United Nations.

United Nations. 2013b. My World. The United Nations Global Survey for a better world. Retrieved 14 August 2013 from:

ÌýAcknowledgements and thanks

We would like to thank UNESCO and UNICEF for providing intellectual support for a Special Edition of the Compare Forum on the post 2015 education and development agenda. We would like to thank in particular Morgan Strecker and Jordan Naidoo (UNICEF) and Olav Seim (UNESCO) for their support and contribution of the summary of the education consultations that their two organisations co-led. Morgan Strecker in particular has been a tremendous source of support and inspiration responding to numerous queries and request for information, feedback and contributions in a speedy and efficient manner. She remains a constant source of encouragement for discussion about the post 2015 education consultations.

David Turner

This is an Author’s Original Manuscript of an article submitted for consideration in Compare [the exclusive right to publish residing with Taylor &Francis, copyright ÌÇÐÄ´«Ã½].

As we move closer to the goal of Education for All, we need to be increasingly aware of what kind of education is appropriate for everybody, and especially what restrictions the wrong type of education imposes.

The end of the nineteenth and the beginning of the twentieth century saw the completion of a major reform of society, with the rise of mass production, the production of consumer goods on an unprecedented scale, the reduction of labour to simple and often unthinking actions, and the rise of bureaucracy. While the “scientific management” of Frederick Taylor was an extreme example, it captured some of the feeling of the time, that mankind had to be adapted to fit the place allotted to it in the productive machinery. These changes also brought the “office culture”. A peasant farmer or a village blacksmith does not need to keep a paper record of their work;the rise of mass production, requires the coordination of many different inputs, required office workers to track those processes.

It is perhaps not accidental that our modern educational systems were born in this environment, when conformity and control were the watchwords of the productive system, and there was a growing need for literacy, albeit a minimal form of functional literacy. In all probability little harm was done so long as there were alternative routes, alternative ways to earn a living, for those who were unsuccessful in school. There were still options for messengers, artisans, cleaners, cooks and bottle washers.

However, the late twentieth century saw two developments which should give us serious pause for thought. In most countries educational systems emphasise learning the basic minimum requirements, the same for everybody, that are essential to fit into the processes of mass production and mass consumption. (Or to fit into government bureaucracies, social welfare and health systems, the requirements for which are very similar.) The first change was that this system became so pervasive that it started to shut down opportunities that previously existed for those who failed at school. The second change was that the system of mass production for mass consumption started to change, and to move towards individualized production. I shall address those two changes in turn.

First, the disappearance of jobs for the illiterate and semi-literate. Even in the last fifty years, developed economies have seen the disappearance of many jobs which involved high levels of skill, but which, generally, did not require high levels of literacy. For example, repairing motor cars used to be a job which involved a long process of induction, but once acquired those skills would provide a secure living for a lifetime. A combination of improved and automated production systems, which extend the lifespan of car components, and consequently increase the time between servicing, and the introduction of new technology, which mean that success depends less and less on manual skill and more and more on the use of on-board computers and complex diagnostic manuals, means that the job has changed beyond recognition. Fifty years ago, the person who repaired cars would depend on years of skill and experience to diagnose faults by hearing, seeing and feeling the various operations of the car. That skill and experience was not acquired in schools. Today, the person who repairs my car attends evening classes to stay up to date with the latest methods.

Similar changes have taken place in the spheres of electrical work, plumbing, construction and many other fields that would previously have been thought of as “manual work” or “blue collar” jobs. More complex units are pre-assembled in factories, and work in the field requires higher levels of literacy. Those who would once have been able to make a living after limited success in the education system now have few options in the labour market. We need to think much more seriously about the education we provide for all when success or failure may have very long-term effects on the life chances of those who experience it. There used to be a segment of the labour market where skills could be learned for life. Now, the corresponding jobs require a high level of literacy as a basis for continual re-skilling. As a consequence, we have seen the virtual collapse of apprenticeship schemes in developed economies.

At the same time as those changes occurred in the market for blue collar workers – not unskilled workers, but workers who could enter their line of work without many educational qualifications – there have been dramatic changes in the processes of mass production themselves. Initially, mass production created goods that met the needs of the masses. The mass produced car brought mobility to people who had not been able to afford a horse and carriage. Mass produced fabric provided luxury for those who could never have afforded hand-woven cloth and carpets. But once that initial phase of mass production was complete, and people in economically developed societies became wealthier, consumers no longer wanted exactly the same as their neighbour. They wanted products of distinction.

In a curious turn, there was a revival in the demand for artisans. Blacksmiths, farriers, cabinet makers and builders can now make a good living. But this is not the return of traditional craftspeople;these are blacksmiths with websites, builders who rely on social networking, and cabinet makers who can tailor their work to the needs of the individual customer. These are people who can offer an individualized service to a niche market. The major growth areas in developed economies are in the service sectors, and even where there is a product, the product has become the vehicle for the provision of high quality services. And this trend, of growth in the service sectors, will continue into the future.

We have seen, in China, the last economy that will develop through the use of mass production based on cheap labour. India is already following a different route, in terms of providing services to international businesses, servicing software and off-shoring various functions. And after a relatively short period of success as a manufacturing power, China is already feeling the need to rebalance its economy away from cheap labour manufacturing, and towards a high income service economy, so that the purchasing power of the Chinese themselves can fuel the future growth of their economy.

Consequently, the key question for the future is, what kind of education best prepares people for the highly fragmented service economy that we see developing in many countries? The answer is that nobody knows. What is clear is that the skill sets required will be as varied and various as the niches for which those individuals are destined. But it is also clear that education will have to provide something much more than the mere ability to earn a living. Education will have to provide and nourish a passion in the student. A passion for anything, so that the young adult can find his or her own niche in the service sector in something they love. Whether the bulk of employees seek to provide a service as a teacher or a waiter, as bespoke carpenter or a chef, they will need an individual passion that will give them interest and purpose, and may well also provide their profession.

If we are not careful we will set goals for the education systems of the world for post-2015 that will freeze schools as they are today, the last vestige of the mass production system of the early twentieth century. What we need is an education service which is a part of the modern, personalized service sector, depending more on intrinsic motivation than extrinsic motivation, and is to a large extent decoupled from the need to earn a living.

Alan Smith

This is an Author’s Original Manuscript of an article submitted for consideration in Compare [the exclusive right to publish residing with Taylor &Francis, copyright ÌÇÐÄ´«Ã½].

The High-Level Panel report on the Post-2015 Development Agenda[1] provides a framework for global development goals to replace the MDGs and set the international development agenda for a further 15 years. The report states that, ‘a new development agenda should carry forward the spirit of the Millennium Declaration and the best of the MDGs, with a practical focus on things like poverty, hunger, water, sanitation, education and healthcare’, but ‘must go beyond the MDGs. They did not focus enough on reaching the very poorest and most excluded people. They were silent on the devastating effects of conflict and violence on development.’ The report calls for an emphasis on building peace as one of five big transformative shifts, stating that, ‘Freedom from fear, conflict and violence is the most fundamental human right, and the essential foundation for building peaceful and prosperous societies.’

There are two main ways that peacebuilding is addressed in the report. The first is the identification of a specific Goal 11 to ‘Ensure Stable and Peaceful Societies’ and the second is the identification of peace as a cross-cutting issue that has implications for other goals.[2] For those working within education this raises questions about how education can contribute towards the peacebuilding Goal 11, and also how the role of education in peacebuilding is reflected in the education Goal 3. Throughout the HLP report each goal is presented in terms of a set of more specific targets and these in turn will need to be underpinned by measurable indicators as a means of gauging progress over time.

Another expectation is that goals, targets and indicators should be universal. This reflects consultations around the New Deal[3] and the HLP aspiration for ‘a new global partnership’, whereby global development challenges are relevant to and apply across all countries, and responses involve ‘country owned and country-led plans’. ÌýIt is particularly important in the context of peacebuilding since there has been a tendency for the international development discourse to associate conflict with a limited set of countries that become stigmatized by the labels used by donors to categorise them.[4]

The UN Secretary-General’s (2009) report on peacebuilding identifies a number of recurring priorities in conflict-affected situations, ‘establishing security, building confidence in a political process, delivering initial peace dividends and expanding core national capacity’.[5]ÌýÌý However, UN support has tended to prioritise security, political and macroeconomic reforms, and undervalued the part that social development has to play in sustainable peacebuilding. Disarmament and security reforms may reduce violence, and new political arrangements may accommodate political elites, but peace agreements often fail and lead to relapses into conflict if underlying injustices and cause of conflict remain unaddressed. Good governance and the provision of public services will only be perceived as a ‘peace dividend’, and provide confidence in the state, if services such as education reach the most marginalised populations and the most deprived areas.

The reported that 28 million children are out of school in conflict-affected countries, 42% of the world total. Children in conflict affected countries are twice as likely as children in other low income countries to die before their fifth birthday. Refugees and internally displaced people face major barriers to education, and conflict-affected countries have some of the largest gender inequalities and lowest literacy levels in the world. Yet education remains a low priority in situations of conflict – it accounts for just 2% of humanitarian aid and only 38% of emergency aid requests for education are met. Whilst development assistance to basic education has doubled since 2002 to US$4.7 billion, current aid levels fall far short of the US$16 billion required annually to close the external financing gap in low-income countries. So we need to ask why 21 of the world’s poorest developing countries continue to spend more on military budgets than primary education – redirecting just 10% into education could put almost 10 million additional children into school. We also need to question the priorities of donor governments whose military spending is US$1029 billion per year – yet 6 days of this would meet the funding gap required to achieve EFA.

Conflict presents huge challenges for education provision, but there have been some encouraging developments in the last few years. The UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon has launched an initiative to put , securing $1.5 billion and supported by an impressive array of high profile advocates. The initiative places a particular emphasis on securing the right to education for children in conflict-affected countries. Progress in such environments requires careful analysis of the drivers of conflict and the development of education responses that progressively address challenges on three broad fronts:

–ÌýÌýÌýÌýÌýÌýÌýÌýÌý Education as a humanitarian response. The challenges include the need to protect children during violent conflict and ensure their right to education. Initiatives such as the have emerged. By maintaining a commitment to education during conflict we can not only protect from physical, social and psychosocial damage, but also provide the means by which societies can recover. Agencies such as have also included an explicit commitment to use conflict analysis as part of its response to displacement situations and working with communities recovering from conflict.

–ÌýÌýÌýÌýÌýÌýÌýÌýÌý Conflict sensitive education. The past decade has seen growing awareness of the ways in which education may be used and abused to exacerbate conflict. Unequal access to education is often one of the most powerful ways in which dominant groups maintain unequal access to power and wealth between groups within conflict-affected societies – often reproduced from one generation to the next. Tensions can be further exacerbated by exclusionary practices or policies related to language of instruction and identity issues – many of these are structural features that could be addressed as part of education reform processes.Ìý Since the GMR an increasing number of agencies have made an explicit commitment to conflict-sensitive education, for example, one of the three goals of the new will bring considerable resources to bear on ‘increased equitable access to education in crisis and conflict environments for 15 million learners by 2015’.

–ÌýÌýÌýÌýÌýÌýÌýÌýÌý Education for peacebuilding. In conflict-affected societies people want to see an end to violence that also brings benefits, partly in terms of access to quality education provision, but also in terms of greater safety and security, involvement in political processes that work for the public good, an economic future that provides sustainable livelihoods and cooperative relations between diverse groups within society. This is a transformative agenda, yet in many countries education systems are geared to reproduce, rather than transform the conditions that generate conflict. One new development is a that has received significant funding from the Netherlands to work on these challenges in fourteen conflict-affected countries.

On all of these fronts education can play a constructive role – whether it is by providing protection in response to crisis and conflict, tackling inequalities in access or bias in education provision, or by contributing to social transformation and change as part of peacebuilding processes. However, it is clear that these challenges will not be addressed successfully if we limit our efforts to solely to basic education. For example, the GMR highlighted research evidence that suggests a link between the risk of conflict and a high youth population, especially unemployed youth with few years of secondary education. The (formerly the EFA Fast Track Initiative) has a particular role here since it is the only multilateral mechanism focused on funding education from early years through primary, secondary and higher education and this will become increasingly important post the current MDGs.

We are now entering a two-year period of inter-governmental negotiation about the post-2015 development goals. There are two big challenges for education. The first is about the importance of mainstreaming education and social development within current UN peacebuilding strategies. One way to achieve this would be the inclusion of a specific target as part of Goal 11 to ‘Enhance equity and social cohesion in access, resourcing, provision and outcomes from public services’. This would broaden the previous MDG in terms of indicators that are universal and measurable and go beyond a narrow focus on access. It also introduces a second challenge, that equality is only part of the peacebuilding equation. As the historical struggle for desegregation of education has told us, ‘equal but separate is not enough’. Education also has an important role in developing social cohesion, particularly within societies recovering from violent conflict. Otherwise it may become an instrument for separate development. Jenson (2010) highlights different ideological influences and definitions of the concept, but underlines the universal importance of social cohesion across OECD and low income countries, and identifies a range of practical indicators.[6]Ìý The High Level Report rightly suggests that Goal 3 emphasises the importance of providing quality lifelong learning, but this also needs to recognise the crucial role of education in promoting social cohesion, measurable in terms of a number of practical indicators such as the extent to which education promotes integrated or separate development, influences perceptions of discrimination, and affects levels of trust between diverse groups in society. Ultimately sustainable peacebuilding cannot avoid issues of social justice, and the inclusion of post 2015 targets related to equity and social cohesion may go some way recognising the crucial role of education and social development in sustainable peacebuilding.

Julia Paulson

Robin Shields

This is an Author’s Original Manuscript of an article submitted for consideration in Compare [the exclusive right to publish residing with Taylor &Francis, copyright ÌÇÐÄ´«Ã½].

The question of what next for education in conflict and emergencies is one of many being asked within the broader discussion of education’s place within post-2015 development goals. The education in emergencies (EiE) community, which has emerged since the turn of the century, has succeeded in ensuring that the needs and realities of children and young people affected by conflict and natural disaster are now clearly part of the international education agenda. The impact of this advocacy message is readily apparent in the 2011 Education For All (EFA) Global Monitoring Report (GMR) entitled The Hidden Crisis: Armed Conflict and Education, which details how conflict is “destroying opportunities for education on a global scale” (UNESCO 2011, 132).

However, this ‘mainstream narrative’ (Human Security Report Project 2012) has recently been challenged. Authors of the 2012 Human Security Report (HSR) argue that the evidence base for EiE is grounded on research that suffers from ‘worst-case bias’, assuming that the devastating effects of conflict that have been documented by researchers in particular contexts can be applied to the conflict experience in general. The HSR, which reviews recent quantitative research around the effects of conflict on education outcomes, argues that, in fact, education is “a development indicator that… appears to improve during many periods of warfare” (2012, 79, original emphasis).

If this is the case, suggestions that EiE should occupy a more prominent place on the post-2015 education agenda (e.g. Talbot 2013) may be unfounded. We have been conducting a research project to understand and respond to the challenge that the HSR poses the EiE community. Part of this project involves scrutinising existing quantitative research, particularly those studies used in the HSR. Equally, it involves undertaking our own quantitative analysis and working to situate this research within broader theoretical discussions about the nature and causes of conflict. Here we briefly summarize debate around the quantitative evidence for EiE, present our own initial findings and consider these in terms of what they might mean for EiE post-2015.

The existing quantitative evidence does raise uncertainty about the impact of conflict on education. However, it does not completely undermine the assumption that generally conflict is not good for education. All of the quantitative studies that the HSR reviewed find negative impacts of conflict on education. For instance, a 2010 UNESCO Institute for Statistics (UIS) study found negative effects of conflict on education in 23 of 25 countries included in their analysis, though not always on both of the outcome variables (share of population without formal schooling and average years in schooling). The negative legacy of conflict was often more visible at sub-regional (rather than national) level or on the attainment and/or participation of particular groups of students[1]. Thus, the HSR (2012) calculation that in 40% of cases educational indicators were better at the end of the conflict period than they were at the beginning is able to stand alongside the UIS (2010) finding that in the vast majority of cases conflict does have some negative effect on education.

An econometric study that explored the effect of conflict on the MDG goals using all developing countries as its sample (Gates et al. 2010, 2012) is summarized by the HSR (2012, 103) as showing that “the average effect of conflict on education outcomes is, at most, a minor decrease in the rate at which they improve.”Ìý This is indeed what the second part of the team’s analysis found: fixed-effects model regression analysis showed that conflicts did adversely affect primary and secondary education rates, but not in a way that was statistically significant. However, the preceding cross-sectional model analysis showed that a ‘standard example’ war-affected country with 10,000 battle deaths would experience a relative decrease in attainment of approximately 7.5 percent (Gates et al. 2010).Ìý As with the UIS (2010) study, however the analysis does not allow for the attribution of this difference to conflict.

Overall, existing quantitative studies provide evidence of a relationship between conflict and educational outcomes. Increasingly, they provide sophisticated insight into nuanced differences across gender, socioeconomic groups, ethnicity and rural/urban location. However, they also suffer limitations: purposive selection of a sample of countries limits the generalizability of findings in a majority of studies. More importantly, cross-sectional analysis does not provide insight into how enrolment changes over time, as it is quite possible that lower educational outcomes and conflict share a common underlying cause. ÌýThe HSR (2012) suggests that this common underlying cause may be fragility.

Therefore, our recent research (under review) longitudinally examines the relationship between net enrolment rates in primary and secondary school, conflict, and state fragility. Our sample includes all countries for which data are available, about 150 in total[2]. Using multilevel modelling techniques, we test whether a relationship exists between conflict and the overall trajectory of country enrolment rates between the years 2000 and 2011.

Our results indicate that there is a statistically significant relationship between conflict and education for both primary and secondary enrolment rates. The effect of conflict is negative but dependent on a country’s overall enrolment level. For countries with lower levels of enrolment (which tend to have higher rates of growth in enrolment), this negative effect is manifested as a decrease in the rate of growth: enrolment continues to grow during conflict, but at a slower rate than it would have otherwise. For countries with higher levels of enrolment, the effect of conflict is an overall decrease in enrolment levels.

However, when we expand our model to include state fragility – the state’s “capacity to manage conflict…implement policy and deliver essential services” (Marshall and Cole 2011) – it emerges as a more powerful explanatory variable for changes in enrolment[3]. The relationship between fragility and enrolment rates is significant and negative, but the relationship between conflict and enrolment controlling for fragility is not. Expressed in practical terms, this means that one would expect to see large differences in enrolment growth between a fragile and non-fragile country, with the former being lower overall. However, if we consider two hypothetical fragile countries, of which one is conflict-affected and one is not, we would not expect to see any real difference in changes in enrolments. The changes in net enrolment are better explained by state fragility than by conflict;and fragility could be the underlying cause of both conflict and negative growth in enrolment.

The research reviewed here holds important implications for EiE in the post-2015 context. Firstly, both our own research and the HSR (2012) point towards the need to deepen understanding and analysis of fragility and its effects on education and on conflict. The challenge is to unpick what fragility means. To do this requires a much deeper exploration of the root causes of conflict in given contexts and also in terms of changing regional and global dynamics – we see this as an opportunity for EiE research, a chance to build a stronger and more theoretically informed evidence base. However, we acknowledge that understanding fragility in order to reduce conflict (clearly important) may not be the stuff of tangible targets and goals. Therefore, we make a second suggestion. Limited state capacity and/or political will are central to definitions of fragility. While these challenges are not the same, the absence of both capacity and political will are issues that, if addressed, may benefit the causes not just of EiE but of many (or all?) of the various priorities being put forward for education post-2015.

References

Centre for Systemic Peace. 2011. State Fragility Index and Matrix.

Gates, Scott, HÃ¥vard Hegre, HÃ¥vard Mokleiv NygÃ¥rd and HÃ¥vard Strand. 2012. “Development Consequences of Armed Conflict.” World Development 40(9): 1713-1722. doi: 10.106/j.worlddev.2012.04.031.

Gates, Scott, HÃ¥vard Hegre, HÃ¥vard Mokleiv NygÃ¥rd and HÃ¥vard Strand. 2010. “Consequences of Civil Conflict.” World Development Report Background Paper.

Human Security Report Project. 2012. Human Security Report 2012: Sexual Violence, Education and War: Beyond the Mainstream Narrative. Vancouver: Human Security Press.

Lai, Brian and Clayton Thyne. 2007. “The Effect of Civil War on Education, 1980-97.” Journal of Peace Research 44(3): 277-292. doi: 10.1177/0022343307076631

Marshall, Monty G. and Benjamin R. Cole. 2011. Global Report 2011 Conflict, Governance, and State Fragility. Vienna, VA: Centre for Systemic Peace.

Talbot, Christopher. 2013. “Education in Conflict Emergencies in Light of the post-2015 MDGs and EFA Agendas.” Norrag Working Paper 3, January 2013. http://www.norrag.org/en/publications/working-papers.html

UNESCO. 2011. Education for All Global Monitoring Report 2011. The Hidden Crisis: Armed Conflict and Education. Paris: UNESCO.

UNESCO Institute for Statistics. 2010. “The Quantitative Impact of Conflict on Education” Think Piece Prepared for the Education For All Global Monitoring Report 2011 The Hidden Crisis: Armed Conflict and Education. http://www.uis.unesco.org/Library/Documents/QuantImp.pdf

Uppsala Conflict Data Programme. 2012. Battle-Related Deaths Dataset, version 5. Uppsala: Uppsala Uppsala University. http://www.pcr.uu.se/research/ucdp/datasets/ucdp_battle-related_deaths_dataset/

Purna Kumar Shrestha

This is an Author’s Original Manuscript of an article submitted for consideration in Compare [the exclusive right to publish residing with Taylor &Francis, copyright ÌÇÐÄ´«Ã½].

It is encouraging that the UN High Level Panel on the Post-2015 Development agenda has recognised education as a priority in its own right as well as a necessity for reaching other goals (UN 2013). The inclusion of pre-primary and vocational education as well as universal access to lower-secondary education signals a clear ambition to go beyond the Millennium Development Goals framework.Ìý Although the reportÌýÌý acknowledges that the quality of education depends on “having a sufficient number of motivated teachers, well trained and possessing strong subject-area knowledge” (UN 2013:37) it has not suggested any indicators and targets for well-trained teachers.Ìý Over 700 stakeholders in VSO focus group discussions in Cambodia, India, Nepal, Papua New Guinea and Thailand highlighted the insufficiency of well-trained teachers and lack of good governance and accountability as major issues in current education for all goals (VSO 2013).Ìý Therefore, this articleÌý arguesÌýÌý thatÌý teacher specific targets andÌý indicators should be includedÌý in the post-2015 education goalsÌý to monitorÌý the commitment from governments and the international community toÌý financeÌý theÌý recruitment, preparation,Ìý deploymentÌý and retention of well-trained and well-supported teachers to address “the challenge of ensuring sufficient teachers where they are needed, andÌý the challenge of enhancing and ensuring the quality of teachers”(Mulkeen 2013: 4).

Insufficient of teachersÌý

One of the gaps in current educational goals is the lack of focus on teachers (GCE, 2013). Globally there is a marked deficit in both teacher numbers and teaching quality, which has an extreme impact on learning outcomes for children. Over 1.7 million more primary school teachers are needed to achieve universal primary education by 2015, on top of replacing the 5.1 million who will leave the profession during this period (UIS 2013). This figure will be much higher if we include the demand for pre-primary and lower-secondary teachers. Countries in sub-Saharan Africa with increasing primary enrolment will need to recruit the equivalent of 63% of their current teaching workforce within the period 2010-2015 (UIS 2013).

Faced with increased pupil enrolment rates and scarce resources, many low income countries have addressed teacher shortages by applying different strategies: employing a new cadre of teachers with lower academic qualifications;providing less pre-service training;and appointing teachers under Ìýless secure temporary contracts (Gardner 2011, Beutel 2011, Daoust 2013).Ìý In The Gambia, for instance, the government has introduced the in-service qualification programme (known as the Primary Teacher College (PTC) extension programme) which combines face-to-face instruction during school holidays with open and distance learning and mentoring during school terms for a period of three years – while the unqualified teacher trainees serve as full-time teachers (Gardner 2011).

Inequitable distribution of well-trained teachers

In many countries, teacher distribution is often uneven. ÌýQualified and effective teachers prefer to teach in schools in urban areas where they can have a “modern sector” lifestyle (Mulkeen 2013), with electricity, and medical facilities and lack of hardship incentives such as housing and transport facilities ( Sarton et al. 2009,Gardner 2011, Beutel 2011, Daoust 2013).Ìý The impact of this preference is that urban areas have the best qualified teachers, and often have over-staffed schools, while the least desirable areas such as rural and urban slums, have more unqualified, younger, inexperienced and less trained teachers to meet the unique learning needs of students (Moon 2012, Mulkeen 2013). For example in Kwara state of Nigeria, in rural schools the pupil-teacher ratio (PTR) is as high as 200 in Patigi. In urban schools, the maximum PTR is 64, with the average PTR as low as13 in Ilorin South (Cram 2013).

In many countries, marginalised children also experience a high degree of teacher absenteeism. As a result, even when children attend school the quality of education they receive can be very poor. This has led to parents in some rural areas pulling their children out of school (Cram 2013).

Learning crisis and teachers’ content knowledge

Early grade reading assessments in several countries have shown pupils’ low level attainment. Many children spend two or three years in school without learning to read a single word (UNESCO 2013).Ìý Therefore, more schooling has not resulted in more knowledge and skills for learners. There is consistent evidence that teachers are the most important school-based factor in determining learning outcomes, second only to what children bring to school (home background) ( HattieÌý 2008 as cited in Mulkeen 2013:19).Ìý Yet, in many low income countries- where education systems have expanded rapidly – teachers themselves may not have subject knowledge because of poor quality teacher education courses and/or reduced qualification for entering into teacher training.Ìý This lack of qualification or subject knowledge presents teachers with difficulties in understanding and breaking down the curriculum for their students (Brown and Ajmal 2011).Ìý It limits their confidence and consequently their teaching and the learning outcomes for children.

Addressing learning crisis and shortage of well-trained and effective teachers

Improvement in pupils’ learning outcomes is possible when teachers are well-trained and effective in helping pupils learn. This depends to a large extent on how committed and motivated they are. And this in turns is influenced by: how satisfied they are with their conditions of service;Ìýhow well prepared they feel as the result of any training and/or professional development that they may have received and Ìýhow well supported they feel by their school and district leaderships within the changing education policy context (Beutel 2011). Teachers themselves identify the lack of professional development opportunities as a major concern (Moon 2012). For instance, most of the teachers who participated in VSO’s Valuing Teachers[1] research inÌý 14 countries,Ìý demonstrated considerable interest in improving and updating their qualifications and skills but existingÌý provisions are not able to meet teachers’ professional development needs . ÌýTherefore, recruiting teachers on the basis of professional competence and ensuring that they are well supported is a key to both providing good quality education and to maintaining a respected teaching profession (ILO 2012).

Governments and donors should act to ensure that marginalised children have consistent access to well-trained teachers. When considering the education goals in the Post-2015 development agenda following indicators must be considered:

• the qualified teacher- pupil Ìýratios disaggregated by economic status,Ìý location, gender, ethnic, religious and linguistic background
• the percentage ofÌý teachers/educators who have received continuing professional development opportunities
• the percentage of aid from development partners to education sector / national budget allocated to increase the number of well-trained teachers and teachers’ continuing professional development.

Conclusion

Without these indicators, itÌý isÌý hard to hold the governments and donors accountable to their commitment to invest on well-trainedÌý and effective teachers, consequently, “the goal to ensure all children regardless of their circumstance, completes primary education able to read, write and count well enough to meet minimum learning standards (UN 2013) will not be achieved.

References

Cram, Stacey. 2013. Every Child Needs a Teacher. Urban Rural Disparity in Kwara State, Nigeria. Kwara: Civil Society Action Coalition on Education for All Nigeria and VSO Nigeria

Beutel, Monika. 2011. Teachers Talking: Primary Teachers Contribution to the Quality of Education in Mozambique. London: VSO.

Brown, Martin, and Yasmin Ajmal. 2011. Leading Learning: A report on effective school leadership. London: VSO.

Daoust, Gabrielle D. 2013. Actions and Interactions: Gender Equality in Teaching and Education Management in Cameroon. London: VSO

Gardner, Courtney M. 2011. Qualifying for Quality: Unqualified Teachers and Qualified Teacher Shortages in the Gambia. London: VSO.

GCE. 2013. Realising the Right to Education for All: Global Campaign for Education Discussion Paper on Education Post-2015. Johannesburg: Global Campaign for Education, 2013.

International Labour Office .2012. Handbook of good human resource practices in the teaching profession. Geneva: ILO

Moon, Bob, ed.2012.Teacher Education and the Challenge of Development. Oxen: Routledge

Mulkeen, Aidan. 2013. Teacher Policy in Primary and Secondary Education in Development Cooperation: Draft Dicussion Paper. ÌýBonn: Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ)

Sarton, Emma, Julia Lalla-Maharajh andÌý Nigel Parsons.2009. How is a good teacher worth ? A Report on the Motivation and Morale of Teachers in Ethiopia. London: VSO.

UNESCO.2013. Education for AllÌý Global Monitoring ReportÌý Policy Paper 07: Addressing the Learning Crisis in Early Grades. Paris: UNESCO

UIS. 2013. Every Child Needs a Teacher. Acessed 15 June 2013. http://www.uis.unesco.org/Education/Pages/global-action-week-2013.aspx

United Nations (UN). 2013.Ìý A New Global Partnership: Eradicate Poverty and Transform economies through Sustainable Development. New York: United Nations

VSO.2013.Ìý Stakeholders’ Voice on Post-2015 Education agenda. London. VSO

Elaine Unterhalter

Rosie Peppin Vaughan

Amy Smail

This is an Author’s Original Manuscript of an article submitted for consideration in Compare [the exclusive right to publish residing with Taylor &Francis, copyright ÌÇÐÄ´«Ã½].

Secondary and higher education have an elusive presence in discussions of the MDGs and the post 2015 Framework. ÌýThe MDG education target focussed on universal primary education. The gender goal had targets for gender parity in primary, secondary and tertiary education, but expressed no aim to expand these sectors.Ìý The illustrative goals and national targets set out in the High Level Panel (HLP) report on the Post 2015 Development Framework (Yudhoyono, Sirleaf and Cameron 2013) outlines a goal of ‘quality education and lifelong learning’, but the associated targets are for lower secondary education, and young people’s skills for work, mentioning only technical and vocational education (Yudhoyono, Sirleaf and Cameron, 2013, 30). The expanded discussion of education in the HLP report makes only passing reference to higher levels of education and the importance of teachers’ knowledge and expertise, without considering how these processes are to be provided for (Yudhoyono, Sirleaf and Cameron, 2013, 37). Why are secondary and higher education treated so superficially in these reports and what are some of the consequences of their omission?

In 2013 we were commissioned by the British Council to undertake research into approaches to secondary and higher education in post 2015 discussions (Unterhalter, Vaughan and Smail, 2013). Our study, based on an assessment of literature and a small number of expert interviews, concluded that the limited focus on these levels could be attributed to a number of processes associated with the MDGs.

Firstly, the compelling need from 2000, as articulated in the MDGs and EFA, to ensure access to a full cycle of primary school dominated the policy agenda;and this unfinished business, particularly for the poorest and most discriminated against, overshadows the post 2015 discussions. ÌýNotably, it crowded out access to higher levels of education. Indeed, as it is often elites who access senior secondary and higher education, the notion that one could simultaneously argue for EfA, taking account of inequalities and marginalization and for expanded higher education, which might not always take account of these exclusions, was not considered by many of the advocacy coalitions. However, the education planning, management and professional support to overcome deeply ingrained inequalities requires critically reflexive, in –depth education provided in a number of universities ( Boni and Walker, 2013). It is important to think of the provision of education at primary, secondary and tertiary levels as a continuum, highly connected with each other. This has been recognised by the Commonwealth Secretariat, Unesco and the World Bank (Commonwealth Secretariat, 2012:36), but generally this theme has been underplayed in discussions of post 2015.

Second, a number of powerful advocacy coalitions stress that EfA can no longer be understood in terms of access to basic education, but must focus on quality of learning and teaching (United ntions,2012;Global Campaign for Education, 2013;ÌýCentre for Universal Education, 2011). Much of the debate is about defining quality (Center for Universal education.UIS, 2013);yet very little of the quality debate has focussed on teacher education despite research on its significance (eg.Moon and Wolfenden, 2012).

Third, while youth and skills are increasingly highlighted as key to economic growth and development(e.g. UNESCO, 2013 and Yudhoyono, Sirleaf and Cameron 2013 ), the particular education needs of this group Ìýare often discussed in imprecise ways, such as Ìýcitizenship (United Nations, 2012) , primary-level skills, or a broader understanding taking in a range of different sites of learning (UNESCO, 2013).Ìý However, the particular links to secondary and post secondary education are often not reviewed in these discussions.

Fourth, patterns of development assistance may set up their own dynamics regarding what is considered important. Since 2000 the largest proportion of aid goes to primary education, and this proportion has grown absolutely and proportionately from 2002 to 2010, overtaking the amount allocated to post-secondary education in the last 5 years. It is a matter of debate as to whetherÌý these trends represent a disproportionate ‘skewing’ of aid, but several authors are concerned that the MDGs and EFA goals are being widely interpreted as a signal to prioritise primary education over all other levels (Benavot et al, 2010). While aid to post secondary education remains the next largest sector, a large component of this aid goes to university scholarships in the donor country, and only a very small proportion towards the higher education in low and middle income countries (Bergmann, 2009;Koehn, 2013). There is no concerted agenda to link higher education with sustainability and equity;as projects of single institutions or individuals, they lack critical mass and the capacity to influence the debates on the post 2015 Framework.

Fifth, the literature on secondary and tertiary education in relation to addressing poverty and inequality is complex and there is little work that shows a causal link between the expansion of higher education and attention to social justice (Lebeau and Sall,, 2011;Naidoo, 2011;Hawkes and Megu, 2011). ÌýHowever, there is a need for synergy in thinking;none of the goals being proposed in relation to health, social protection, safe water or ICT could be delivered without considerable professional, scientific and technological knowledge and training (Waage et al, 2010;Unterhalter and Dorward, 2013).Ìý However, the perception that it is elites who participate in higher education may have limited research attention to Ìýhow this sector contributes toÌý inclusion, access to education and other areas of political, social and economic development.

While at present there is not a robust evidence base linking higher education and poverty elimination and equality, it is clear that a number of the HLP’s principles for a post 2015 framework require higher education. The technological expansion to support integrated sustainable development requires not just the expertise of particular knowledge hubs like Silicon Valley, but in-depth acquaintance with the conditions of different countries. Ìý‘Big data’, which the HLP advocates as crucial for generating appropriate indicators and monitoring systems, will not be devised, collected, analyzed or critiqued in ways that are responsive to local conditions without a concomitant expansion of a class of knowledge brokers and knowledge users. These processes require higher education.

Our review examined how the main organisations involved in the post MDG discussion addressed secondary and higher education (Unterhalter, Vaughan, and Smail, 2013, 33-44). Unesco and the World Bank, the most prominent agencies working on education and development, have related but distinct positions;Unesco tends to provide an arena for critical thinking linked with rights, building networks of higher education institutions. The World Bank tends to focus on the implications for economic growth, entrepreneurship, and system strengthening in higher education. However neither organisation has significantly prioritised higher education, despite publishing a number ofÌý works on higher education and poverty in the last decade ( UNESCO, 2004;World Bank, 2011;). Some other development organisations, government departments, donors, and higher education institutions, have stressed the importance of higher education for the EfA agenda, but none, with the exception of the Asian Development Bank (2012), have actively been advocating within the post-MDG discussions. The small amount of literature on the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) does not yet mention education, and none of the large civil society coalitions are arguing for secondary or higher education.

We are not convinced that a target or an indicator on secondary and higher education is an appropriate direction to take with regard to the post 2015 agenda, partly because of concerns with some of the perverse consequences associated with the indicators selected heretofore (Fukuda Parr and Yamin, 2013). But we do think discussion of the important role to be played by secondary and higher education in addressing global issues of poverty, sustainability and equality, should figure more prominently in the post 2015 education agenda than it currently does. Without some explicit attention, the elusiveness, which is enmeshed with many unexamined inequalities will persist, and this does not augur well for the post 2015 world we want.

References

Asian Development Bank. (2013) ADB Economic Working Paper Series: A ZEN Approach to Post 2015: Addressing the range of Perspectives across Asia and the Pacific, Philippines: Asian Development Bank.

Benavot, A., Archer, D., Moseley, S., Mundy, K., Phiri, F., Steer, L., and Wiking, D., (2010) ‘International Aid to Education’, Comparative Education Review , Vol. 54, No. 1 (February), pp. 105-124.

Bergmann, H. (2009) Review of Prospects for Scaling up Germany’s Aid to Education: Background paper prepared for the Education for all Global Monitoring Report 2010: Reaching the Marginalised, Paris: UNESCO.

Boni, A., and Walker, M. (2013) Human Development and Capabilities: Re-imaging the university in the 21^st century, Abingdon: Routledge

Center for Universal Education at Brookings. (2011) A Global Compact on Learning: Taking on Education in Developing Countries, Washington DC: Brookings

Center for Universal Education at Brookings and Unesco Institute for Statistics. (2013) Toward Universal Learning: What Every Child Should Learn: Report No 1 of 3: Learning Metrics Task Force February 2013, Brookings Institution: UIS and CUE

Commonwealth Secretariat. (2012) Commonwealth Ministerial Working Group on the Post-2015 Development Framework for Education: Commonwealth Recommendations for the Post-2015 Development Framework for Education Background Paper, London: Commonwealth Secretariat

Fukuda Parr, S. And Yamin, A., 2013,

Global Campaign for Education. (2013) Realising the Right to Education for All: Global Campaign for Education discussion paper on Education Post 2015: March 2013, Global Campaign For Education

Hawkes, D., and Megur, S., (2012) Evidence on the relationship between education, skills and economic growth in low-income countries: Systematic Review, London: EPPI.

Koehn, P. (2013) ‘Donor-Supported Transnational Higher Education Initiatives for Development and Research: A Framework for Analysis and a Call for Increased Transparency,’ Higher Education Policy, 12 March 2013

Lebeau, Y., and Sall,E. (2011) ‘Global institutions, higher education and development’, in R. King, S. Marginson and R. Naidoo (eds) Handbook on Globalization and Higher Education (Cheltenham: Edward Elgar), 129-147.

Moon, R.and Wolfenden, F. 2012, Teacher education in Sub-Saharan Afirca Oxford: Symposium Books

Naidoo, R., 2011, ‘Rethinking development: higher education and the new imperialism’ in R. King, S. Marginson and R. Naidoo eds. Handbook on Globalization and Higher education, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, 40-58.

UNESCO. (2004) Final Report of the Meeting of Higher Education Partners (World Conference on Higher Education +5), UNESCO Paris 23-25 June 2003, Paris: UNESCO.

UNESCO. (2012) EFA Global Monitoring Report: Youth and Skills, Paris: UNESCO.

United Nations. (2012) Education First: An Initiative of the United Nations Secretary General , New York: United Nations

Unterhalter, E. and Dorward, A., (forthcoming, 2013) ‘New MDGs, development concepts, principles, and challenges in a post 2015 world,’ Social Indicators.

Unterhalter, E., Vaughan, R.Ìý and Smail, A. 2013 forthcoming, ÌýSecondary, Post Secondary and Higher Education in the Post-2015 discussions. London: British Council.

Waage, J.,Ìý Banerji, J., Campbell, O., Ìýet al ‘The Millennium Development Goals: a cross sectoral analysis and principles for goal setting post 2015’ The Lancet, Vol. 376, Issue 9745, Sept. 2010, pp. 991-1023.

World Bank (2011) Learning For All: Investing in People’s Knowledge and Skills to Promote Development: World Bank Group Education Strategy 2020, Washington DC: World Bank.

Yudhoyono, S. B.,Ìý Sirleaf, E.J. and Cameron, D., 2013, A new global partnership. Report of the High Level Panel of Eminent Persons on the Post 2015 Development Agenda.New York: United Nations Publications

Dr Frida Tungaraza

Dr Margaret Sutherland

Dr Niamh Stack

This is an Author’s Original Manuscript of an article submitted for consideration in Compare [the exclusive right to publish residing with Taylor &Francis, copyright ÌÇÐÄ´«Ã½].

The second Millennium Development Goal (MDG) (UN, 2000) called for universal primary education for all by 2015.Ìý As educators we watch with particular interest as this date draws closer.Ìý It is becoming increasingly clear that while some countries have made encouraging steps forward, the full intention of this goal will not be realised by 2015.Ìý There has been much debate within the field on how to formulate the priorities for the post 2015 agenda.Ìý There is a need to build on what has been achieved and develop workable solutions for real progress (UNESCO, online).Ìý Few would disagree that calling for all children to be in education is a laudable goal.Ìý The problem has been with the implementation of the processes, as difficulties with these have resulted in delays in meeting the 2015 date.

This discussion paper aims to contribute to the debate by questioning the assumption that one shared target is achievable, arguing instead that we need to take into account the diversity of learners, teachers, and societies.Ìý Issues we will raise include:

1. ÌýIs there a shared understanding of what Universal Education is?
2. Are current Universal Education systems equitable for all?
3. Are current Universal Education systems inclusive?

Universal Education

The MDG focused on getting children into formal school and thus little attention was paid to the quality and relevance of the education they received once there, or to whether or not formal education was the only way to achieve the goal.Ìý The conceptualisation of “school” within the discourse has resulted in Western dominated practices and curricula being adopted in countries with differing cultural and historical roots.Ìý Post-colonial theorists have long questioned a uni-dimensional approach to multi-dimensional development issues with Escobar (1995) questioning whether it was this uni-dimensional approach that had hindered development.Ìý ÌýÌýA hegemonic approach to education neglects the voices of subaltern people and in doing so excludes indigenous knowledge from the learning process.Ìý McFarlane (2006:1416) contends that knowledge continues to be something that is exported to the Global South and if we are to change this calls for a ‘conception of learning that must be critically reflexive of the power relations between different groups, and that must be able to imagine the possibilities of learning between different contexts in ways that do not conform to historical patterns of colonisation or to contemporary tendencies of aid-based conditionality’. This may go some way to explaining why we have yet to successfully achieve Universal Education.Ìý To be successful the future agenda must take cognition of the need to make a paradigm shift towards a more heterogeneous understanding of education. Ìý

Equitable for all?Ìý ÌýÌýÌýÌý

Equity and quality have already been highlighted as central to the post 2015 education agenda (UNESCO, 2013).Ìý Collaborative working to find solutions to trans-national issues seems eminently sensible and yet in reality it can be deeply problematic. Power relationships between people and across all levels and organisations i.e. donor agencies, Governments, school leadership, teachers, pupils, Universities to name but a few, can hinder progress. At the heart of this is the need for human beings to value and respect each other as they collaboratively search for solutions to inequity and social justice.Ìý The post 2015 agenda has to acknowledge the human relational aspects associated with development and this will be crucial if equity is to be at the forefront of change post 2015.

ÌýInclusion

Leaders who will shape the ensuing landscape must consider the fundamental dignity of all people.Ìý How this is actualised in countries will be dependent upon their histories, cultures and understanding but accepting difference as a primary aspect of being human offers a starting point for progression.Ìý Disability is one aspect of human inconsistency and is one that often leads to marginalisation and stigmatisation.Ìý This is true for people in developed as well as developing countries.Ìý A post 2015 educational agenda that considers an inclusive approach to this group of learners may simultaneously deal with issues of ‘social affiliation, community membership and improved student outcomes‘ (Toson et al., 2013).Ìý The State of the World’s Children 2013 report (UNICEF, 2013) focused on disability and made for simultaneously uncomfortable and hopeful reading.Ìý On the one hand the report highlighted the considerable discrimination for children with disability and on the other it contained case studies that demonstrated how discrimination could be diminished where “physical, attitudinal and political barriers are dismantled” (UNICEF, 2013:2).Ìý Perhaps the most challenging barrier to overcome in this list will be the attitudinal barrier.Ìý Entrenched views on societal ways of dealing with difference will have to be surmounted.Ìý While legislation and frameworks can support and indeed even enforce certain changes, ultimately it is about individuals’ values and their behaviour within society. Education, in its broadest sense has a role to play in informing and challenging the accepted discriminatory practices and attitudes.

Conclusions

What has happened to date has served some well and further marginalised others.Ìý In planning for post 2015 education, we would argue that it is essential to return to basic principles and ask what we mean by education. Learning is a lifelong process and so to confine our ambitions to formal primary education alone is short sighted.Ìý If our ambition is to provide all children with the education that they need, then how useful is a culturally hegemonic system that stops at the end of primary schooling?Ìý ÌýAre we at risk of imposing a top down system with the assumption that the ultimate destinations are white collar jobs and international universities?Ìý The reality is that these destinations are not attractive or open to all learners and this is a lesson we should have already learnt from the complexity of trying to incorporate inclusive practice and pedagogy in education systems in developed countries.Ìý Before we propose making a system universal we need to find one that works for all learners. We need to establish how individualised education in a universal system might work. Perhaps now is the perfect time to stop and ask what kind of global education do our world’s children need and how might this help them build sustainable futures within their own societies be they in developing or developed countries.

Bibliographical Reference ÌýÌýÌýÌý

Escobar, A (1995) Encountering Development: The Making and Unmaking of the Third World Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

McFarlane, C. (2006) Crossing borders: development, learning and the North-South divide Third World Quarterly 27 (8):1413-1437.Toson, A. L. M.;Burrello, L.C. and Knollman, G. (2013): Educational justice for all: the capability approach and inclusive education leadership, International Journal of Inclusive Education, 17:5, 490 -506.

United Nations (2000) Millennium Development Goals (accessed 28 June 2013).

United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (2013) Education for All Global Monitoring Report accessed 28 June 2013.

United Nations International Children’s Emergency Fund (2013) The State of the World’s Children Paris: UN.

Angeline Barrett

This is an Author’s Original Manuscript of an article submitted for consideration in Compare [the exclusive right to publish residing with Taylor &Francis, copyright ÌÇÐÄ´«Ã½].

Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) look set to replace the Millennium Development Goals in 2015 (United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development Rio+20 2012;High-Level Panel 2013). ÌýSustainable development is defined as having economic, social, environmental and governance dimensions (Leadership Council of the Sustainable Development Solutions Network 2013). Those who see the environment as enveloping human systems would see this as a dilution of the environmental dimension (Jickling and Wals 2008). Certainly, within the High-Level Panel’s report subtitled Eradicate poverty and transform economies through sustainable development, the shift towards a sustainable development agenda is not a break with the logic of neoliberal economics. Nonetheless, it represents the most significant re-balancing of the notion of international development since the concept of international development emerged in the 1950s.

Within the debate on an education goal, sustainable development, most especially the environmental dimension, has not been centre stage. The synthesis of the consultation led by UNESCO and UNICEF Ìýpoints out interactions between education and other goals and criticizes the compartmentalized approach taken to the Millennium Development Goals (UNICEF/UNESCO 2013) but does not go much further. There is an emerging consensus that to promote equity, targets associated with an education goal should be designed to direct efforts at the poorest, which is consistent with the social dimension of sustainable development. A second consensus is for a “life-cycle” (Leadership Council of the Sustainable Development Solutions Network 2013: 12;UNICEF/UNESCO 2013: 7)Ìý or lifelong learning goal (High-Level Panel 2013;UNICEF/UNESCO 2013) with targets across educational levels from early childhood through to postsecondary skills and vocational education. This has potential to link into a goal for work and employment and support economically sustainable development (McGrath 2013). Higher Education has not appeared as part of a proposed education goal. This is in contrast to the heavy emphasis placed on Higher Education as a core aspect of capacity building for sustainable development in the Rio+20 outcome document from the conference that placed SDGs firmly on the agenda (United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development Rio+20 2012). As McGrath (2013), the emphasis on capacity building and with it Higher Education tails out in the HLP report. Within comparative and international education scholars have long argued for capacity building in and through Higher Education Ìý(Koehn 2011).

A third point of consensus , is that an education goal should include targets, particularly for literacy, numeracy and skills (Center for Universal Education at Brookings 2011;UNICEF/UNESCO 2013). The emphasis on learning is consistent with the World Bank’s latest education strategy (World Bank 2011), titled Learning for All. This poses challenges with respect to measurement of learning (Barrett 2011) and also for how we decide what learning matters, as I argued in an earlier Compare Forum (Barrett 2011). It is with respect to the question of what learning we should care about in the twenty-first century that education researchers need to engage with the wider development agenda.

The Rio+20 UN Conference on Sustainable Development viewed education as a goal for promoting knowledge and awareness about the environment Ìýand developing skills for sustainable development (United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development Rio+20 2012). ÌýResearch in comparative and international education, however, reveals that formal education’s contribution to sustainable development is as ambiguous as its relationship to conflict, captured by Bush and Saltarelli’s (2000) much cited “two faces of education” analogy. Whilst formal education may be a tool for promoting scientific knowledge about the environment, it also has a track record of undervaluing local knowledge and ontological perspectives respectful of the natural world (Santos 2007;Bainton and Crossley 2010;Aikman and King 2012) and through its language policies contributing to the loss of minority languages that carry local knowledge and ontologies (Maffi 2005;Ross 2006). Whilst education can develop critical and problem-solving skills and promote values for working together, as a selective system that links examination success to job opportunities, security and earnings, it also functions to reproduce inequality (see for example,Wang 2011 ).Ìý As education services are increasingly corporatized and commercialised internationally, so scholars have argued it becomes more vulnerable to the values of consumerism and neoliberalism (Jickling and Wals 2008;Robertson 2012). For example, whilst it is argued above that Higher Education makes a vital contribution to capacity building, Haigh (2008) points out the commercial interests of Western universities contradict sustainable development by promoting a standardised model of education and the hegemony of Western knowledge (Santos 2012).Ìý In a bid to ensure that education is included in the post-2015 agenda in a more expanded form than the education MDG, the post-2015 debate has tended to focus on the positive face of education. As researchers, however, we should not turn our gaze away from the negative face of education but continue with research and analysis that exposes and seeks to transform that face.

Conclusion: Comparative Education post-2015

The SDG era may not, for comparativists, feel very different from the MDG era. ÌýThe work of resisting policy homogenization and drawing attention to the specificity of local contexts will continue with greater imperative, as will the work of exposing and reforming the colonial heritage with respect to how identity, culture and knowledge are constructed and limited within formal education (Holmes and Crossley 2004;Hickling-Hudson 2007). We will find ourselves continuing to work to build capacity for research and leadership of quality improvement in specific contexts. However, to understand what constitutes a good quality relevant education in the twenty-first century will require greater engagement with other development goals, including the environmental dimension of sustainable development (Bangay and Blum 2010;Crossley and Sprague In Press).Ìý This work will continue to be conducted against a global context of intensified commercialisation and standardisation. ÌýWithin this context, a target for learning outcomes may increase the influence of an international industry in measuring learning outcomes, which has its centres of expertise mainly in wealthy countries in the global North increasing the imperative to argue for local determination and debate of learning goals.

References

Aikman, S. and L. King (2012). “Special Issue: Indigenous knowledges and education.” Compare: A Journal of Comparative and International Education 42(5).

Bainton, D. and M. Crossley (2010). Lessons from comparative and international education. Education and Social Change: Connecting local and global perspectives. G. Elliot, C. Fourali and S. Issler. London, Continuum: 15-26.

Bangay, C. and N. Blum (2010). “Education responses to climate change and quality: two parts of the same agenda?” International Journal of Educational Development 30(4): 359-368.

Barrett, A. M. (2011). Compare.

Barrett, A. M. (2011). “A Millennium Learning Goal for education post-2015: A question of outcomes of processes.” Comparative Education 47(1): 119-133.

Bush, K., D. and D. Saltarelli (2000). The two faces of education in ethnic conflict: Towards a peacebuilding education for children. Florence, UNICEF Innocenti Research Centre.

Center for Universal Education at Brookings (2011). A global compact on learningL taking action on education in developing countries, Center for Universal Education at Brookings.

Crossley, M. and T. Sprague (In Press). “Education for sustainable development: Implications for small island developing states (SIDS).” International Journal of Educational Development.

Haigh, M. (2008). “Internationalisation, planetary citizenship and Higher Education Inc.” Compare: A Journal of Comparative and International Education 38(4): 427-440.

Hickling-Hudson, A. (2007). “Cultural complexity, post-colonialism and educational change: Challenges for comparative educators.” International Review of Education 52(1-2): 201-218.

High-Level Panel (2013). A New Global Partnership: Eradicate poverty and transform economies through sustainable development, The report of the High-Level Panel of eminent personals on the post-2015 development agenda. New York, United Nations.

Holmes, K. and M. Crossley (2004). “Whose knowledge, whose values? the contribution of local knowledge to education policy processes: a case study of research development initiatives in the small state of Saint Lucia.” Compare: A Journal of Comparative and International Education 34(2): 197-214.

Jickling, B. and A. E. J. Wals (2008). “Globalization and environmental education: looking beyond sustainable development.” Journal of Curriculum Studies 40(1): 1-21.

Koehn, P. H. (2011). “Donors and higher education partners: a critical assessment of US and Canadian support for transnational research and sustainable development.” Compare: A Journal of Comparative and International Education 42(3): 485-507.

Leadership Council of the Sustainable Development Solutions Network (2013). An Action Agenda for Sustainable Development, Report for the UN Secretary General. Paris/New York, Sustainable Developmetn Solutions Network.

Maffi, L. (2005). “Linguistic, cultural, and biological diversity.” Annual Review of Anthropology 29: 599-617.

McGrath, S. (2013). Skills, Work and Development: Initial Reactions to the High Level Panel’s Post-2015 Vision. NORRAG NEWSBite. NORRAG, NORRAG. 2013.

Robertson, S. L. (2012). “Placing Teachers in Global Governance Agendas.” Comparative Education Review 56(4): 584-607.

Ross, S. (2006). Talking the Walk: Language as the missing ingredient of biodiversity conservation? An investigation of plan knowledge in the West Usambara Mountains, Tanzania. School of Development Studies, University of East Anglia. Ph.D.

Santos, B. d. S., Ed. (2007). Another knoweldge is possible: Beyond Northern epistemologies. London/New York, Verso.

Santos, B. d. S. (2012). “The University at a crossroads.” Human Architecture: Journal of the Sociology of Self-Knowledge 10(1): 7-16.

UNICEF/UNESCO (2013). Education in the Post-2015 Development Agenda, Background Paper of the Global Thematic Consultation on Education, Revised Draft. New York, UNICEF.

United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development Rio+20 (2012). The Future We Want, Resolution adopted by the General Assembly. 66/288. U. Nations. New York, United Nations. A/RES/66/288.

Wang, L. (2011). “Social exclusion and inequality in higher education in China: A capability perspective.” International Journal of Educational Development 31(3): 277-286.

World Bank (2011). Learning for All: Investing in people’s knowledge and skills to promote development, World Bank Group Education Strategy 2020. Washington DC, International Bank for Reconstruction and Development /The World Bank.

Dr the Honorable Vasant K. BUNWAREE

This is an Author’s Original Manuscript of an article submitted for consideration in Compare [the exclusive right to publish residing with Taylor &Francis, copyright ÌÇÐÄ´«Ã½].

Introduction

With discussion on the post-2015 agenda for education well underway, there seems to be reasonable consensus on the issues to be addressed. Access, equity and quality are words frequently appearing in the discourse (UNESCO and UNICEF 2013). There appears to be less consensus, however, on the structure of the development framework, and to whom it should apply. How to resolve the gaps and duplication among three global frameworks that address education – the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), Education for All (EFA), and the Decade for Education for Sustainable Development – and how to align these with emerging goals for sustainable development, remain open for discussion. Arguably more thorny is the question of whether all countries should be subject to the new development framework. There is probably no country that would claim it does not need to address access, equity or quality in its education system, yet developed countries’ engagement in the post-2015 agenda for education debate tends to be only through offices for international development, with their education ministries absent from the table.

Commonwealth Ministers of Education met in London in December 2012 to discuss these issues and develop recommendations for the post-2015 agenda. While recommending that three core concerns of access, quality and equity run through all education goals, they also put forward proposals for structure and participation that aimed to resolve these questions (Commonwealth Secretariat 2012c).This article outlines the Ministers’ recommendations.

Architecture

Ministers proposed that the post-2015 development framework should feature three principal goals for education (Commonwealth Secretariat 2012b). These would build on the current education MDGs. These principal goals would be supplemented by six detailed subordinate goals that would build on EFA. This single, two-tier structure would allow the alignment of headline and specific goals and reduce the implementation and monitoring burden on countries. Targets and deadlines would generally focus on 2025, but options would be available for individual countries, depending on starting point, national priorities and capacity constraints. This allows for all countries, regardless of their current level of development, to take part in achieving development goals.

Principal Goals

The first principal goal relates to access. Much work remains in meeting the current MDG and EFA goals for universal primary education (Menefee and Bray 2012). However, in order to address the concern that the phrasing of the current goals resulted in an over-emphasis on enrolment to the detriment of learning outcomes (Melamed 2012), the focus of the proposed goal is access with learning.

Principal Goal 1: Every child completes a full cycle of a minimum of 9 years of continuous, free basic education and demonstrates learning achievement consistent with national standards.

The second principal goal relates to quality, but conceptualises quality in the context of a world in which education paradigms are evolving rapidly in response to changing political, economic, social and technological conditions (Robinson 2010). The goal seeks to go beyond the measurement of learning outcomes and be wide enough to encompass quality in other areas, such as policy and strategy, management and leadership, lifelong learning, community participation, quality assurance mechanisms, and development assistance.

Principal Goal 2:Post-basic education expanded strategically to meet needs for knowledge and skills related to employment and livelihoods.

The third principal goal relates to equity. The connection between an individual’s or a social group’s relative disadvantage and their inability to realise their potential is clear (Lewin 2012). National development can be considered the aggregate of individual or social realisation of potential. This is true of any country, regardless of its level of development. Reducing the gaps in achievement caused by disadvantage while at the same time improving overall educational achievement is key to the attainment of all development goals.

Principal Goal 3: Reduce and seek to eliminate differences in educational outcomes among learners associated with household wealth, gender, special needs, location, age and social group.

Subordinate Goals

Six subordinate goals support increased access, quality and equity:

i.ÌýÌýÌý Reduce and seek to eliminate early childhood under-nutrition and avoidable childhood disease, and universalise access to community based early childhood education and development and pre-school below age 6 years

ii.ÌýÌý Universalise an ‘expanded vision of access’ to a full cycle of a minimum of 9 years of continuous basic education

ÌýÌýÌýÌýÌý Successful achievement of national learning outcomes in cognitive, affective and psychomotor domains for both primary and lower secondary cycles at age appropriate levels up to the age of 15 years

iii.Ìý Invest strategically in expanded and equitable access to post-basic and tertiary level education and training linked to wellbeing, livelihoods and employment and the transition to responsible adult citizenship

iv.Ìý Eliminate illiteracy and innumeracy amongst those under 50 years old

ÌýÌýÌýÌýÌý Provide education opportunities for young people and adults who have not successfully completed 9 years of basic education

v.ÌýÌý Reduce and seek to eliminate disparities in participation in education at school level linked to wealth, location, special needs, age, gender and social group and ensure all children have equal educational opportunities and reduce gaps in measured outcomes

vi.Ìý Provide adequate infrastructure for learning according to national norms for buildings, basic services, safety, learning materials, and learning infrastructure within appropriate distances of households.

Cross-cutting themes

The above goals, in their universality and concern with equality, appear comprehensive. But the experience of implementing the current development framework, together with the emergence of global concern over issues such as climate change and migration, led ministers to suggest thematic emphases running through all goals.

Ministers thus agreed on the importance of focusing efforts on vulnerable and marginalised children —whether they are the consequence of migration or the collateral damage arising from cataclysms, natural or man-made or socially constructed mind-sets. Indeed, lack of resilience of education systems to conflict has caused the greatest failures in meeting the current goals (UNESCO 2011). It is universally agreed that education must play its part in addressing the challenges of environmental change (Commonwealth Secretariat 2012d) and contribute to sustainable development.

In order to focus efforts on these hardest- to- reach children, Commonwealth ministers propose four cross-cutting themes to be addressed by all education goals. These are of such fundamental importance they should be addressed by all education interventions. They are:

a) Education in Emergencies – Conflict and disaster risk reduction integrated into national education sector plans;

b) Migration – All migrants of school-age or who are education professionals recorded in monitoring of education goals by the host country to inform policy formulation;

c) Ìý Gender – All reporting and evaluation of the development goals disaggregated by sex and analysed through a gender lens;and

d) Education for Sustainable Development – Education for sustainable development mainstreamed in all education policies, teacher and school leader preparation, and curricula.

Conclusion

The Commonwealth embraces 54 countries, 2 billion people and considerable diversity. Its priorities, which were articulated by its education ministers at their triennial meeting in Mauritius in 2012, are global priorities (Commonwealth Secretariat 2012e). Accordingly, diverse needs can be addressed through flexible national or regional targets and deadlines, set within a global framework of goals that is universal in conception and implementation. This clearly necessitates a comprehensive, integrated and multi-sectoral approach to development, and that can be best achieved through a unified structure of principal ‘headline’ goals and subordinate, sectoral goals.

Bibliography

Commonwealth Secretariat. 2012a. Commonwealth Ministerial Working Group on the Post-2015 Development Framework for Education: Background Paper. London: Commonwealth Secretariat. .

Commonwealth Secretariat. 2012b. Commonwealth Ministerial Working Group on the Post-2015 Development Framework for Education: Recommendations. London: Commonwealth Secretariat. .

Commonwealth Secretariat. 2012c. Commonwealth Ministerial Working Group on the Post-2015 Development Framework for Education: Statement. London: Commonwealth Secretariat. .

Commonwealth Secretariat. 2012d. Education for Sustainable Development in Small Island Developing States: Information Brief. London: Commonwealth Secretariat. .

Commonwealth Secretariat. 2012e. Eighteenth Conference of Commonwealth Education Ministers: Issues Paper Synopsis. London: Commonwealth Secretariat..

Lewin, Keith. 2012. Revisiting the internationally agreed goals for education. Paper presented at 18th Conference of Commonwealth Education Ministers, August 28-31, in Paille, Mauritius. .

Melamed, Claire. 2012. Post-2015: The road ahead. London: Overseas Development Institute. .

Menefee, Trey, and Mark Bray. 2012. Education in the Commonwealth: Towards and beyond the Internationally Agreed Goals. London: Commonwealth Secretariat..

Penson, Jonathan, Akemi Yonemura, Barry Sesnan, Kimberly Ochs and Casmir Chanda. 2012. Beyond the Commonwealth Teacher Recruitment Protocol: Next steps in managing teacher migration in education in emergencies. In Next steps in managing teacher migration: Papers of the sixth Commonwealth research symposium on teacher mobility, recruitment and migration, ed. Jonathan Penson and Akemi Yonemura, 126-166. London and Paris: Commonwealth Secretariat and UNESCO-IICBA. .

Robinson, Ken. 2010. RSA Animate: Changing education paradigms. London: The Royal Society of Arts. .

UNESCO. 2011. The hidden crisis: Armed conflict and education. EFA Global Monitoring Report 2011. Paris: UNESCO. .

UNESCO and UNICEF. 2013. Thematic consultation on education in the post-2015 development agenda, 18-19 March 2013 – Dakar, Senegal: Summary of outcomes. .

Sajjad Alhawsawi

Helen Hanna

This is an Author’s Original Manuscript of an article submitted for consideration in Compare [the exclusive right to publish residing with Taylor &Francis, copyright ÌÇÐÄ´«Ã½].

Following the United Nations Millennium Declaration in 2000, eight Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) were adopted, to be achieved by 2015. Although only one goal is directly related to education—that of attaining universal primary education—the other goals may be achieved through education. Additionally, UNESCO set six education goals outlined in the Education For All (EFA) framework, which includes issues of access, equity, and learning outcomes. These goals (MDGs and EFA) overlap in many aspects and varying interpretations have been ascribed to them by international organisations and government bodies. As the deadline for achieving the goals approaches, much discussion and consultation work is being carried out across the globe, including in the sphere of education (Wordl We Want, n.d.). Students meeting at a postgraduate conference under the auspices of the ÌÇÐÄ´«Ã½ and the United Kingdom Forum for International Education and Training (UKFIET), and hosted by the Centre for International Education at the University of Sussex, made a contribution to these discussions. This article summarises the presentations and main issues discussed at the conference with regard to the post-2015 education agenda, focusing on nine key areas.

The first issue addressed during the conference related to gender equality (MDG goal 3), universal access to education (MDG goal 2), and equity (EFA goal 2), and the potentially ‘perverse effects’ of MDGs and EFA. It was suggested that in Mozambique, as in some other parts of Sub-Saharan Africa, pregnant girls are often excluded from the regular school timetable and transferred to night courses. This is viewed as helping to achieve all three goals as the girls are permitted to remain in education;however, this strategy was considered by the conference as problematic in terms of the goals as by ‘punishing’ pregnant girls by excluding them from day classes, the achievement of gender equality is being hindered. Students recommended that there be clearer guidelines for the attainment of MDGs and EFA goals so that accurate descriptions of the intended achievements might be reflected in statistics.

The second issue that arose related to the role of language of instruction in the achievement of educational quality and equity in the post-2015 education agenda. Drawing on the example of the educational context for minority language communities in multilingual Thailand, critique was made of the MDGs (goal 2) and EFA (goal 2) frameworks with respect to the continued marginalisation of linguistic and cultural minorities in terms of accessing good quality primary education in their first language. It was proposed that there are significant educational benefits to bilingual education, and that there should be an emphasis on equity and valuing minority languages and cultures in the post-2015 education agenda.

The third key issue raised related to a proposal to develop a MDG dedicated to rural development, and relatedly, the development of education that is relevant to rural communities. Examples were drawn from rural Zimbabwe, where it was reported that the development rate was slow due to issues such as human capital flight, lack of quality education facilities, and the absence of a local development centre. It was suggested that a MDG dedicated to rural development might help to counteract urban bias, enabling rural communities to become globalised and empowered to take ownership of their development. It was further argued that the curriculum taught in rural educational settings should be tailored to meet the development needs of the sector. In relation to this, discussion emphasised the importance of availability of funds and that this should be taken into consideration when addressing educational issues in the post-2015 education agenda.

The fourth key issue related to sustainable development, and the development of goals and indicators on related values in education. Within the post-2015 MDG framework, it was argued that educational goals should look beyond enrolment, completion and parity, towards education focused on the acquisition of sustainability-related values. Examples of such values include those presented in the Earth Charter and in the UN Millennium Declaration. It was suggested that indicators for such values should be context-specific, to increase credibility and attainment.

The fifth issue arising from student discussions was that of international commitments to achieving educational goals in both the MDG and EFA frameworks. Although many nations signed the UN Declaration and endorsed EFA goals, these commitments are not legally binding;rather, they are non-enforceable moral commitments. While donors could put pressure on the receiving nations, this was not considered appropriate and sufficient. Thus, the introduction of international minimum standards regarding education rights was emphasised, in order that the future education agenda might be achieved.

The sixth concern raised was informed by goals on equity in education. Since children in many parts of the world are living in societies affected by crisis or conflict due to war, religious, political or cultural violence, famine or natural disasters, the issue of providing education for such a group can pose a significant challenge. The conference argued for attention to education under conflict as part of a future agenda.

The seventh area addressed was that of the adopting of different set of goals and foci by different international organisations, such as UN and UNESCO. The result has been two overlapping sets of goals found in MDGs and EFA, with a lack of coordination at the international level. It was proposed that an international organised effort to design the next education agenda should avoid two sets of competing goals.

The eighth issue related to power relations in designing the post-2015 agenda. It seems that the majority of the organisations involved in the evaluating and re-engineering of education and development goals were organisations from the North that focussed mainly on the South;there is a lack of input from the South in discussions relating to the post-2015 agenda. It was argued that the issue of power relations should be addressed in any discussion of post-2015 frameworks and that voices from the South should be represented. Additionally, the conference suggested that issues of inequality, gender and quality education should be addressed in terms of the development of the North as well as the global South – the next global agenda should focus on all regions without exception.

The final issue discussed by student delegates related to ways in which attainment of the education goals can be measured. The conference showed concern about whether the existing approaches of MDGs and EFA precisely measure the attainment of these goals. For example, many students in the conference argued that the term ‘completion’ as in ‘completion of universal primary education’ does not necessarily entail ‘learning’. Thus, it was felt that most of the indicators for the attainment of the goals were limited, particularly in the case of the MDGs as they excluded quality and learning, or did not exist initially, as in the case of the EFA goals. Thus, the goals were perceived as input measures rather than measures of learning and skills gained. Therefore, the conference called for development of specific measures on learning attainment.

In conclusion, many opportunities but also many challenges were raised when considering the post-2015 global education agenda. Student concerns on the debate related to areas such as the development of relevant, quality and equitable education, gender parity in education, the need for clarity and contextual considerations in defining indicators, the need to address North-South power differentials, and the development of a more streamlined single set of goals. It is hoped that students will continue to be able to make their voices heard as deadlines for the achievement of goals approach.

References

World We Want. Available at:

Acknowledgments: We would like to thank the British Association for International and Comparative Education and the UK Forum for International Education and Training for their generous funding of the conference during which the discussions outlined in this article took place. We would also like to thank Prof Mairéad Dunne at the Centre for International Education at the University of Sussex for hosting the event, and to our speakers, Dr Yusuf Sayed and Prof Keith Lewin, for their expert input. Finally, we would like to thank the student delegates for their contributions, without which this article would not have been possible.

Crain Soudien

This is an Author’s Original Manuscript of an article submitted for consideration in Compare [the exclusive right to publish residing with Taylor &Francis, copyright ÌÇÐÄ´«Ã½].

Albert Motivans

This is an Author’s Original Manuscript of an article submitted for consideration in Compare [the exclusive right to publish residing with Taylor &Francis, copyright ÌÇÐÄ´«Ã½];The final version is available here.

Drawing on the initial results of UN-led expert groups and global consultations among the education and broader development communities – the directions for the post-2015 global priorities have begun to emerge and gain critical momentum. ÌýThese efforts have included the UN High Level Panel, the World We Want consultation and a number of global, regional and national consultation exercises. As noted by observers[1] – attention thus far has focused on three key areas for the post-2015 education agenda:

1. Equitable access to education for all children, especially the poorest and most marginalized;
2. Emphasis on learning outcomes and education quality;
3. Learning across a continuum – from early childhood to adolescents and the transition to work.

These are not new areas for the education community, and in fact, have been highlighted by previous efforts, such as the Education For All movement from 1990 and even earlier.Ìý While they may not necessarily imply a new agenda per se, this still represents an opportunity for refining approaches and renewing efforts for political and social mobilization around global progress in these areas.

In addition, these efforts have highlighted the importance of data and measurement as essential for monitoring progess, transparency and accountability. Indeed monitoring indicators help planners make better-informed decisions by presenting the best available evidence. However, in many countries, issues with data availability and quality limit their use and impact. The High Level Panel paper calls for a ‘data revolution’ to take advantage of the advances in technologies for data collection, processing and analysis, which would allow developing countries to “leapfrog” ahead in terms of measuring progress.

But, how do we get from these broad policy areas to meaningful and monitorable indicators? In theory, measurement should respond to a clearly articulated policy framework – it should aim to capture the key concepts and priorities in such a framework. However, in practice, the policy to data process is often a complicated one with many different levels, pathways and players.

Some proposals which list specific indicators have appeared (e.g., High Level Panel, Save the Children, EFA GMR et al). The risks in not considering technical aspects at an early stage of the discussions are evident from the MDG process itself – where some targets/indicators were poorly defined and later dropped or supplemented with other indicators. While it is useful to consider the feasibility of measures when considering goals and monitoring, it can also risk distracting attention away from the formulation of solid rationales for what constitute the most important development and education priorities.

In developing the global measurement agenda it is important to keep in mind two fundamental principles.Ìý First while most of the attention is drawn to articulating a small and influential set of high level goals and the indicators used to monitor them, there is a pressing need for the renewal of a broader and more holistic framework (e.g., Education for all) which encompasses the education sector and its constituencies. It would seem reasonable to build from this renewed vision in order to derive the key priorities for the smaller set of measures required for monitoring development goals. Second, efforts should be driven by country needs – the measures should take into account their relevance for for monitoring national plans and priorities.

Thus, in addition to set of key global indicators, a broader roadmap which goes beyond collecting the most readily accessible data. It should set out an agenda to work with national partners to build demand for data use, improve data systems, strengthen technical expertise and to invest in the longer term methodological development for both national and cross-national standards and best practices. This would require some type of multi-stakeholder effort which would help to align and guide the activities and ambitions of a wide range of global, regional and national actors, which doesn’t currently exist.

Measuring equitable access to education

The coverage of data on education inequalities has improved, most notably through the use of standardized household surveys funded by UN agencies, multi-lateral and bi-lateral agencies, which capture data on school participation and attainment. Since the 1990s, some 300 DHS surveys were conducted in 90+ countries and 215 MICS surveys in 140+ countries. Using these survey data, it has been possible to identify children and youth who are out of school and their individual and family characteristics. ÌýEfforts like the EFA Global Monitoring Report’s WIDE database report data widely and the UNICEF/UNESCO initiative on Out of School Children (OOSCI) which works with 25 countries some which have the highest numbers of out of school children to improve data quality and promote the use of these data to better understand the barriers to school access.Ìý While basic measures of access to education from household surveys are increasingly reported, they are still relatively limited in scope and often perceived as outside of national processes and thus underutilized by policymakers.

Recognising the lack of a common language for discussing the issue of equity in education, there is the need to bring together some of the diverse approaches and to take a more systematic approach to conceptualising and measuring the equity of countries’ education systems. For example, if the goal is that all children have equal learning opportunities, there could be a number of indicators which could inform progress. But if the goal is that children facing disadvantage receive unequal (e.g, compensatory) learning opportunities, this would be difficult to monitor. Likewise is it the absolute gap in opportunity – all children should complete primary education and acquire minimum competencies of basic skills – or the relative gaps in opportunity – the differences between children should be minimized. Reaching consensus on an approach will place allow for the development of indicators to assess the equity ofÌý education systems and to develop and implement policies that address the most critical equity issues.

In addition to this, there are still a number of technical issues which need to be better addressed, including sample designs that better capture disadvantaged populations, better measures of the ages of children, measures which go beyond participation and attainment and the need to focus not only on individual attributes in relation to access, but also maintain the focus on learning providers.

Measuring learning outcomes and education quality

Much progress has been evident in the greater recognition of the importance of learning and its measurement throughout the 1990s and 2000s leading increasing numbers of countries taking part in global assessments such as PIRLS, TIMSS and PISA, to new regional initiatives that monitoring reading and maths (MLA, SACMEQ, PASEC, TERCE), the doubling of the proportion of countries, globally, with national large-scale assessment systems.

Building on this progress, a wide range of education stakeholders are working collectively to define and measure progress toward learning goals at the global level and to inform the post-2015 global development policy discourse – and as importantly create a platform for further advancing this agenda. The Learning Metrics task force represents UN agencies, regional organizations, national governments, bilateral donors, and civil society organizations and accesses a global network of technical expertise in the evaluation of learning, and capacity to move learning forward on the global development agenda. UNESCO, through its Institute for Statistics, and the Center for Universal Education at the Brookings Institute forms the Secretariat.

Based on recommendations from technical working groups and input from broad global consultations, the task force has mobilized education stakeholders to raise the profile of learning and measuring outcomes. It has recommended a framework for seven key learning domains with numerous competencies, identified six areas for measuring learning opportunities and outcomes and considered the implementation of learning assessment.Ìý These recommendations are designed for use globally, building and complementing efforts to measure learning that are already underway at national and regional levels. The next steps involve the articulation of a multi-stakeholder group to carry forward the recommendations and provide support to countries engaging in large-scale assessment.

Future directions

The data revolution is partly about the opportunities provided by new tools, but it’s not just about the technology. It’s about the use of the technology, the valuing of its results, and the use in policy formulation and assessment. This isn’t just about quick solutions but about long-term institutional change. The scope and ambition of such an effort to mobilise national governments and international stakeholders in the areas of equity and quality would need to be unique and unprecedented and will require a long-term plan and strategy which should go beyond an initial selection of global indicators. Addressing the information gap in these areas has been an on-going concern that has made gains, and it is clear that it will take considerable time and resources to further build on these gains. Thus the human and financial resource gaps in achieving these ambitions should not be underestimated.

Director Education, Center on Globalization and Sustainable Development, Earth Institute, Columbia University

ude.aibmuloc.ieobfsctd-95bd6b@ragneyi

Namchi- Ykaegbu Ifeyinwa, PhD

Education Desk Officer, Office of the Senior Special Assistant to the President of Nigeria on MDGs

moc.oohayobfsctd-80334d@yfiubgeaku

It is now less than 1000 days to meet the MDGs in 2015. In this write-up we specifically focus on MDG2- universal primary education and highlight some of the pros and cons of the MDG framework. Some guiding questions in this article are as follows:

1. Should implementing education interventions accompany a focus on strengthening government systems which may end up being a more time consuming activity?
2. How much attention should be given to local empowerment as a sustainable approach to meeting the education goal?
3. What is the scope of a participatory approach in meeting these inter-sectoral goals?
4. Is it possible to rely on local level education planning agencies to create robust action plans to meet the goals?

The Earth Institute, Columbia University is partnering with the Federal Government of Nigeria, specifically, the Office of the Senior Special Assistant to the President of Nigeria on MDGs (OSSAP-MDGs) in its mission to achieving the MDGs by 2015. The approach to meeting the MDGs that the Office has adopted is truly innovative. Nigeria has 774 Local Government Areas, 36 States and the Federal Capital Territory with an approximate population of about 200 million. OSSAP-MDGs managed Conditional Grant Scheme (CGS) for the Local Government Areas (LGAs) is especially targeted to achieve the MDGs at the grassroots level based on ground level realities.

LGAs in Nigeria vary enormously in size and face diverse development challenges. Therefore, OSSAP-MDGs acknowledges that the education gaps and needs of each LGA are different. Hence, each LGA is on a different level in terms of achieving the Education goals but the aspiration to achieving the MDGs is universal. Empowering local governments, equipping them with the technical and financial resources they need and strengthening partnerships between the three tiers of governments (Federal, States and LGAs) will speed-up progress towards the attainment of the MDGs. This is also in alignment with the National Assembly of the Federal Republic of Nigeria’s (2004) mandate on the Universal Basic Education (UBE) Act (2004). The Act requires the States and LGAs to partner in driving UBE in the provision of free compulsory basic education for every child of primary and junior secondary school age.

OSSAP-MDGs requires each LGA to prepare their plans that align with achieving the education goals. This is done with the help of a Technical Assistant (TA) who is assigned to the LGA to create a cross-sectoral plan. To prepare the Education plan for the LGA the Technical Assistant consults a LGA technical committee which comprises of the Education sector experts. These experts are typically the Local Government Education Secretary who is responsible for all education activities at the LGA. The role of the Technical Assistant is not to replace the government education agency at the local level. Rather s/he acts as a bridge between different education agencies at the LGA level. The Office also realizes that MDGs are multi-sectoral therefore local level planning toward the Goals also needs to be multi-sectoral. The TAs consult a Technical Committee at the LGA to create proposals that are finally approved by the Office at the Federal level. The point to be noted here is MDGs require multiple agencies to be working together at the local level since they are closely connected to the ground level realities and contextual variations. Meeting the MDGs doesn’t require re-creating strategies, rather simply joining the jots and bridging the gaps. The consultation process is also rather unique to this initiative, where education experts from the Federal office of the MDGs in Abuja and the local Government education experts are all involved in reviewing and vetting the local action plans based on the overall education needs of the LGA.

To be able to drive this local level planning process, the OSSAP- MDGs along with the Earth Institute, organize multiple rounds of trainings which includes having a common understanding of the Conditional Grant Scheme application, reviewing national education policies and understanding and using education indicators to validate the education demands in the proposals form a large part of the training. To make the application for the CGS funds more robust, OSSAP invested in creating a baseline for all schools in Nigeria. This data was processed and key indicators were displayed on a technological interface for the surveyed schools along with their GPS location. This education database was aggregates at the LGA level to paint a generic picture of the education needs of the LGA. The TAs used this database first to validate its authenticity, but also to share with the Technical Committee to help understand education related gaps for the CGS allocation. For instance, does the LGA need funds to repair and maintenance classroom, buy textbooks and/or to train its teachers.  The Technical Committee is supposed to share its current funding allocations in the education sector with the TA so that the CGS fund could be used for filling in the gaps rather than replicating the funding of the different line ministries such as the Ministry of Education, National Teacher Training Institute and others.

This process that we described above has not been easy. Understanding the Education systems in terms of organization structures and funding lines between different Ministries has been a relentless process. Understanding the inter-linkages between different Ministries, the structures at the federal, state and local levels, their functional powers and funding flow in a decentralized country, took immense amount of time. Integrating education projects at all three tiers is also a priority for OSSAP (OSSAP, 2010). For instance, the State Universal Basic Education Board (SUBEB) is responsible for funding a borehole at the school premise, however the Water Board at the LGA is responsible for the repair and maintenance. Therefore if the borehole needs repair, this information will need to go to SUBEB and will be communicated with the Water Board who will come and fix the problem at the school. Needless to say that the structures at the federal, state and the LGA level had to be matched by specific policies as well as required detailed understanding of implementation steps at all levels. Given the size of Nigeria and decentralized set-up that exists, it was not surprising to find that each LGA had its own way of doing local planning. Nigeria Vision 20 2020[1], like all policies at the Federal level, provides the framework of where the country as a whole needs to go, however leaves the local planning and implementation to the states. This made sense, since local plans are “local” plans and have to shape the policy framework based on contextual factors. For example, the problem of Almajiri[2] children being out-of-school is not present at the same intensity in the south zone as in the North Eastern zone. Similarly, getting girls to school is not a problem everywhere in Nigeria;this scenario is much more serious in the Northern states while boys have lower enrolment rates to basic education than girls in the Eastern states. As intended, national level education policies provided the framework for specific issues rather than detailing out every step for implementation. Given this background, the OSSAP- MDGs was able to bring the concept of MDGs, link it to specific Sector policies and created actionable plans by using a participatory planning approach at the local level. This is a great example where local level plans are created locally rather than handed down from the Federal level.

While the focus throughout has been achieving the MDGs, there are many other positive externalities to this approach. For instance, this inter-sectoral approach of creating local level plans without instituting new government agencies at the local level deserves due credit. Therefore equipping schools with safe clean drinking water is not just an education issues, but also a water issue. This approach to inter-sectoral planning may hopefully lend itself to a more integrated planning process which looks at the overall for other needs in the LGA. Creating an inter-sectoral Technical Committees at the local level may hopefully become the technical back stopping team for all interventions proposed by other agencies such as the World Bank, International NGOs etc. Empowering the local agencies to create plans, getting funding approved at the Federal level with support from the state agencies show that local level agencies are functional and effective and can be further strengthened to deliver better public services. This entire process has been backed by a data driven approach. Therefore making local government agencies a repository of data for their own LGA gives them the power to use the data for multiple purposes. This initiative showcases the importance of data locally collected and locally made available rather than losing months and years to reach the Federal level. A quick set of indicators made available at the local level is much more powerful. The indicators could be operational process related indicators such as percentage of schools with a functional clean safe drinking water supply, percentage of schools with all classrooms having a usable chalkboard, percentage of schools with all teachers having access to teacher guidebooks are a sample of indicators which are action oriented and easily to understand. Please see Figure 1 for a digital view of a selected indicator. Thus showing the data available nearest to the source is much more useful for it to be used for action in a short duration of time.

The Nigeria CGS LGA program also shows how meeting the MDGS can be taken-up at scale. One third of the total LGAs wrote their CGS proposals within 2 years of the initiative being in place, another 148 were added in the third year with plans for another 250 by the end of the same year. Filling in gaps to attain the MDG2 cannot be leisurely planned and implemented anymore. Time is running out! Still millions of children are out of school. The CGS LGA program has set a platform to ensure that funds reach the local authorities to implement their Education Action Plans. At the same time, the entire process is steadily leaving a legacy of local planning tools, training guides, implementation manuals, education policy briefs, education sector specific international best practices to seep into the system.

The Nigeria case bring a new promise of local level participation and through the TAs creating a cadre of local level planners who will be able to learn from the experience and become a repository of resources for the rest of the LGAs. Meeting MDG2 has its own set of complexities, however along with the interventions or sector specific strategies;this legacy of local level empowerment needs to be nurtured further.

References

OSSAP (2010). MDG Countdown Strategy Report 2010-2015, Achieving the MDGs, Nigeria Millennium Development Goals

National Assembly of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (2004) Compulsory Free Universal Basic Education Act 2004, May 26^th.

Figure 1

[1] For more details on the Nigeria Vision 20 2020 planning document please visit http://www.npc.gov.ng/home/doc.aspx?mCatID=68253

[2] Almajiri, a Hausa word meaning immigrant child in search of Qu’ranic education. These children travel from state to state to learn quranic education. This trend also becomes a threat to their security and in most cases have to resort to begging to cover their basic living costs.

Francesca Salvi

Doctoral Researcher

University of Sussex, Department of Education, Centre for International Education

ku.ca.xessusobfsctd-90bc85@ivlaS.F

Interconnections between education and growth have been a core theme of the development agenda. At the UN Millennium Summit in 2000, they informed Goal 2 (Universal Education) and Goal 3 (Gender Equality), expressing the need to promote universal access to education and to eliminate gender disparities in education by 2015. Specifically, Goal 2 aimed to ensure that, by 2015, children everywhere would be able to complete a full course of primary schooling. Similarly, Goal 3 focused on gender by encouraging countries to eliminate disparities in primary and secondary education, preferably by 2005, and at all levels of education no later than 2015.

According to official data divulged by INE, Mozambique has experienced a process of fertility decline for the past 15 years, from 5.7 (1980) to 4.3 (2005) children per woman. However, as seemingly revealing as this particular data may be, it glosses over the nuances of specific reproductive trends. More useful INE data provides clear insight into the sexual and reproductive health of Mozambican young people (INE, 2001). According to the INJAD survey, the number of young people contributing to the country’s fertility rate remains high. Among the 5,347 girls between 15 and 24 interviewed 49.3% had already had at least one child at the time of the interview, while 52,7% had become pregnant at least once. Moreover, the mean age at first baby decreased from 19.2 in the 1990s to 18.6 in 2000s. Overall, this means that Mozambican women have their first child at a young age, but then go on to have fewer children throughout their life.

Seen from this perspective, teenage pregnancy remains a tangible source of concern as it occurs during those years generally devoted to formal schooling and, as such, motherhood is likely to cause conflict with human capital investment, thereby raising the opportunity cost of time spent in education (Chigona and Chetty, 2007, p. 2). Teenage pregnancy is subsequently listed among the main causes of school dropouts in sub-Saharan Africa (Chankseliani, 2008;Eloundou-Enyegue, Stycos and Jah, 2004;Grant and Hallman, 2006;Meekers and Ahmed, 1999), where it accounts for approximately 18% of all female dropouts in secondary school and 7.3% in both secondary and primary school (Eloundou-Enyegue, Stycos and Jah, 2004, p. 3). The numbers are even worst in Mozambique, where pregnancy accounts for 39.1% of the total number of dropouts in secondary schools and 9.0% at the primary level (Eloundou-Enyegue, Stycos and Jah, 2004). At the individual level, this may mean limitations on wellbeing through, for instance, the early curtailment of education leading to a loss of academic qualifications and subsequent secure employment. At a country level, the conflict between teenage pregnancy and education may hinder development towards a fully modernized economy by limiting the number of skilled individuals.

If, as it seems, pregnancy is among the main causes of school dropout, it should come as no surprise that national governments in most sub-Saharan African countries view a reduction of teenage pregnancy as contributing to bridging of the gender gap in education. Accordingly, some sub-Saharan African states seem to have moved some way towards meeting the aims set out in various international conventions, signalled, for example, by an increase in the formulation of gender-sensitive policies towards education in the last decade (Chilisa, 2002).

Chilisa (ibid.) distinguishes three kinds of policies targeting in-school pregnancy: expulsion, continuation and re-entry policies. Continuation policies are the most progressive, whereas the other two categories contribute to the reproduction of some forms of gender inequalities, through limiting access to education for girls who become pregnant. Chilisa further categorises Mozambique within the group of states adhering to rigid expulsion policies. However, Mozambique has recently undertaken a process of transition, mirrored, among other things, by the 2003 national policy targeting pregnancy related school dropouts (Ministerial Decree 39/GM/2003). This policy indicates that pregnant girls should be transferred from day to night courses, marking a shift from Chilisa’s analysis. It also mandates that school staff should be suspended, if found to be involved with the pregnancy at all. This shift in policy has important consequences both for those targeted by the decree and for the positioning of the state within the international community.

Decree 39/GM/2003 appears to be a rational response to the gender gap. On the one hand it marks some improvement from previous customary habits of expelling pregnant girls by allowing them to remain in education and complete their degree, albeit transferred to a night courses. On the other hand the decree sends a clear message: pregnancy is not welcome within educational institutions, and it will have an impact on attendance. Strategically, transferring girls to night courses also becomes a deterrent for other girls, in that they will be able to see that a pregnancy will not be condoned. Ultimately, decree 39/GM/2003 is an attempt to de-normalise in-school pregnancy, by reducing its visibility, or limiting it to specific sections of the day, namely, those traditionally allocated to adult education. Overall, it seems to provide a functional operationalisation of MDG 2 and 3 in its aims and practical implications.

What looks like a happy ending is however problematic and deserves to be unpacked in the light of extensive qualitative fieldwork. For instance men are rarely penalised, and the indications contained in decree 39/GM/2003 in this respects rarely make it beyond the official act. This is for two reasons. First, men or boys involved with girls’ pregnancies rarely attend the same school as the girls. They are often members of the community, whether employed or unemployed. Second, if they work in school as teachers, it is unlikely that they are made redundant. The supply for teachers in Mozambique is in fact limited, and demand for schooling is high. In the worst case scenario, teachers may be transferred to a different school, but even this is unlikely.

At the same time, although decree 39/GM/2003 does allow pregnant girls to remain in education, it does so by transferring them to night courses. Attendance at night may be problematic in a number of ways. For instance public transport at night is scant, making journeys longer for girls. Being out and about at night is also more dangerous, especially if transfer times are longer, making it riskier for pregnant girls to go to school. Night courses can be disrupted more often, for example by electricity black-outs, which abounds, especially in rural and semi-urban areas. As night courses were originally developed for adult literacy, there is likely to be a substantial age gaps between classmates, making it more difficult to integrate and create a feeling of community in the classroom.

All of these reasons contribute to raising the opportunity cost of attending school for pregnant girls, and ultimately encourage drop out. In this sense, decree 39/GM/2003 does little to provide an avenue for pregnant girls to remain in education. In other words, the decree does comply with the international agreement to which Mozambique signed up, represented in this case by MDG 2 and 3. It also seems to be a functional operationalisation of the concerns subsumed by the MDGs. However, a careful exploration of its practical implications suggests that the policy may in fact contribute to the discrimination of in-school pregnant girls, and in-school mothers. In turns, this goes against the implications of MDG 2 and 3 as girls who happen to get pregnant in primary school may not be supported in order to complete the cycle. Similarly, by de facto encouraging dropout, there seems to be no attempt to bridge the gender gap in both primary and secondary education.

This brief analysis has suggested that decree 39/GM/2003 may run the risk of contrasting the aims of the Goals it was originally meant to support. A possible way to limit perverse effects such as those mentioned here is to consider processes along the lines of outlining ‘goals’. Similarly, it would be beneficial to engage with local communities in order to operationalise such goals through context-sensitive policies. Careful monitoring, and inclusion of all stakeholders – in this case, students and pregnant schoolgirls themselves – would counterbalance the impact of potential perverse effects, and contribute effectively to bridging the gender gap in education.

References

Chankseliani, M. (2008), ‘Gender inequality in Mozambican primary education: problems, barriers and recommendations’. Political Perspectives, 2 (1), 1-30.

Chigona, A. and Chetty, R. (2007), ‘Girls’ Education in South Africa: Special Consideration to Teen Mothers as Learners’. Journal of Education for International Development, 3 (1), 1-17.

Chilisa, B. (2002), ‘National Policies on Pregnancy in Education Systems in Sub-Saharan Africa: the case of Botswana’. Gender and Education, 14 (1), 21-35.

Eloundou-Enyegue, P. M., Stycos, J. M. and Jah, F. (2004), Integrating Education and Population Policy: The Gender-Equity Payoffs of Reducing Pregnancy-Related Dropouts, Annual Meeting of the Population Association of America. Boston.

Grant, M. and Hallman, K. (2006), Pregnancy-related school dropout and prior school performance in South Africa. New York: Population Council.

INE. (2001), Inquérito Nacional Sobre Saúde Reprodutiva e Comportamento Sexual dos Jovens e Adolescentes. Maputo.

Meekers, D. and Ahmed, G. (1999), ‘Pregnancy-related school dropouts in Botswana’. Population Studies, 53, 195-209.

Introduction

India has witnessed considerable improvement on elementary education over the last few decades. This has been particularly evident after the Jomtien Declaration of 1990, which helped establish a new perspective on elementary education (grades I–VIII), recognizing it as a basic need. The Declaration also helped reiterate and entrench the right of every person to benefit from educational opportunities. This perspective was reinforced at the World Education Forum, 2000 where its six EFA Goals paved the way for viewing education as a basic component of human development in India. These internationally agreed goals, read along with the National Policy on Education, 1986 and its Plan of Action, 1992, have also been the guiding principles for various initiatives that India has taken to improve its education system over the last two decades. More recently India has adopted the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education (RTE) Act, 2009. With this backdrop, this contribution considers the current situation in elementary education in India and the specific challenges that it faces in a post 2015 agenda focused on quality and learning.

An Overview

Universalisation of Elementary Education (UEE) has been a constitutional commitment in India and it has received enormous attention in the recent past, resulting in the introduction of many policies, programmes and innovative actions through different state specific programmes and centrally sponsored schemes, including Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan (SSA). It has received further fillip through the recent introduction of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education (RTE) Act, 2009, whereby education has been incorporated as a fundamental right for children belonging to the 6–14 age group. Despite the considerable quantitative expansion of school education, there still exists a considerable gender gap and differences between the rural and urban areas as revealed by the recent NSS data (Figure 1).

Figure 1: Per 1000 Distribution of Persons by Completed Level of Education for Each Age-group

Access to school, along with enrolment, has improved for most of the children as almost all areas have schooling facility within close vicinity. According to the recent data (NUEPA, 2013), As many as 14.1 lakh elementary schools enrol of Ìý137.1 million learners at the primary level and 64 million at the upper primary level. ÌýAlthough the Government is main provider, fee paying private schools have rapidly expanded jeopardizing social and gender equity. Out of the total primary schools, seven per cent are private unaided and this proportion increases to 22 per cent in case of upper primary schools (GOI, 2012). While around 31 per cent were enrolled in private schools at the primary level, this proportion increases to 37 per cent in case of upper primary grades (NUEPA, 2013).

Challenges to be met

However, despite this quantitative expansion, many worrisome facts remain. Despite substantial decline, the total number of out of school children has been estimated at around 3 million in 2012, compared to 8 million in 2009 (Pathak, 2013). There are also wide variations in enrollment, retention and school completion between and within different states and districts. Some areas have been classified as educationally backward showing low rates of economic growth and poor standards of living (Govinda and Bandyopadhyay, 2011;Bandyopadhyay, 2012a and 2012b).

School participation and learning achievement remain disturbingly low for the vast majority of children. Around 53 per cent of Std. V children could not read Std II level Text (Pratham, 2013, 47).Ìý High drop-out rate, even at the primary level, is a problem that illustrates the ongoing inefficiencies in the system. While around 27 per cent children drop out in grade V, around 41 per cent of students drop out in grade VIII (GOI, 2013). Incidence of non-enrollment, low participation and drop-out is more marked in the case of vulnerable groups and further intensifies with caste, gender, religion, racial discrimination, poverty, malnutrition and geographical location (Govinda and Bandyopadhyay, 2011). These problems are more severe in areas affected by militancy and civil strife, extending to several states of country (UNICEF, 2009).

Research indicates that the high number of drop-outs and low participation are largely due to the poor functioning of schools as a result of the lack of physical infrastructure and academic resources, poor administration and monitoring, and low investment of financial resources, which often coalesce together to make education provisioning more challenging.

Present and Future Policy Agenda

In light of the above discussion, development of a more egalitarian education system in India in a post 2015 world seems an urgent imperative so that all students, particularly the marginalized are about to learn, complete their education and transit to the next level. An increase in aspiration levels along with improved literacy rates is visible among all sections of the population, leading to an increase in demand for quality education. This seems to be an opportune time for all service providers and stakeholders to address this demand through their collective actions. Targeted investment of adequate resources with disaggregated actions by public and private agencies is necessary to reduce regional and inter-state disparities.

Since each school functions within its own context, a sustained school specific focus is needed to ensure that they are inclusive learning spaces that value diversity while providing equal learning opportunities for all. An Increased focus on learning is most critical in today’s context of developing a knowledge-based society but mere external testing or terminal examination may not improve the teaching–learning process. Learning should be conceptualized in a more holistic and contextualized manner including a focus on teacher empowerment and professional development. It is important to note that India has sizeable young population (10 to 24 age group), numbering around 360 million, India may reap this ‘demographic dividend’ only if quality learning opportunities which enable them to innovate and take on new challenges for ‘living together’ in a pluralistic world are prioritized. In this regards, gender and social equality needs to be made a core priority especially for marginalized populations. For this, strong political will is necessary to bring elementary education at the center stage of the agenda of inclusive growth and ‘development with human face’ agenda, as envisaged by Millennium Development Goals.

ÌýReferences

ÌýBandyopadhyay, M. 2012a. ‘Social Disparity in Elementary Education’, Seminar, October, 2012, pp. 21–25.

Bandyopadhyay, M. 2012b. ‘Gender equity in educational access in India’, Southern African Review of Education (SARE), Volume 18, Number 2, 2012, pp. 9–24.

GOI. 2012. Selected Educational Statistics, 2010–11, MHRD, Govt. of India.

GOI. 2010. NSS Report 64th Round—Education in India, Participation and Expenditure, Ministry of Statistics &Programme Implementation, New Delhi, pp. A-16–21.

Govinda, R. and M. Bandyopadhyay, 2011. ‘Access to Elementary Education in India: Analytical Overview’, in Govinda, R. (ed.) Who Goes to School: Exploring Exclusion in Indian education, Oxford University Press, New Delhi, pp. 1–86.

NUEPA, 2013. Elementary Education in India: Progress Towards UEE, Flash Statistics, DISE, 2011–12, Provisional;NUEPA, New Delhi, India.

Pathak Kalpana (2013) Ìý No. of out of school children down from 8 mn to 3 mn since 2009: MHRD, Business Standard, Mumbai, May 15, 2013

Pratham, 2013. Annual Status of Education Report, Rural, 2012 ASER Centre, New Delhi, Accesed inÌý on 28June, 2013.

UNICEF (2009) Machel Study 10-Year Strategic Review: Children and Conflict in Changing World, New York, USA