International Education Policy After
2015: Past Trends, Future Proposals
Aaron Benavot
Visiting Professor, Center for the Study of International
Cooperation in Education (CICE)

CICE Seminar
Hiroshima University, March 8, 20121

Overview of presentation
1. Brief historical perspective on the evolution of int’l. education policy
2. Monitoring policy implementation in the post-Jomtien (1990-2000) andpost-Dakar (2000-present) periods

3. The EFA balance sheet: Based on GMRs, how much real EFA
progress has occurred since Dakar? What are remaining challenges?

4. Lessons learned re EFA implementation and monitoring during the last
decade (financing and aid issues are excluded from this talk)5. Today, with eye to a future int’l policy, emerging questions to consider
6. Towards a post-2015 educational policy: preparatory work & rethinking
assumptions

7. Three possible post-2015 scenarios: ‘More of the Same’; ‘More of
the Same PLUS’; and ‘Something Different (well almost)’

8. Comments and questions2

1. Historical Trends in Education
 Historically (late 19th/early 20th centuries) formal schooling expanded in
North America, parts of Europe, Japan and parts of LAC. In many cases
universal primary education was achieved. Minimal impact of internationalorganizations; some transnational forces (eg, colonialism, religious groups)
served either as obstacles or carriers of educational models. Key point:mass education expanded significantly in absence of supportive
international policies and external financial aid.

 After WWII primary education takes off in other regions/countries, esp. after

breakup of European empires. Growing importance of int’l conventions,expert-driven models, bilateral/multilateral aid flows, and int’l agency
programs.
Norm-setting impact of Article 26 in the UN’s Universal Declaration of
Human Rights (Dec 1948): “Everyone has the right to education. Education
shall be free, at least in the elementary and fundamental stages.
Elementary education shall be compulsory...”Signatories of UDHR commit themselves to the goal of providing school
places for all children. Each country is expected to implement legislation 3
making primary schooling compulsory and free.

Educational Policies after WWII Beginning in the 1950s UNESCO supported ambitious educational policies
aimed at mobilizing national (and international) action: convened
conferences on compulsory school legislation (eg in Bombay 1952, Cairo
1955, Lima 1956), and then universal access to education (eg in Karachi
1960, Addas Ababa 1961, Santiago 1962, Tripoli 1966)

 Today, more than 90% of independent countries and dependent territories(192/209) have established laws making primary/basic education compulsory
and free. However, in many countries laws are not enforced; and basic
education is not free in practice–due to direct and indirect costs to families.

 And while primary enrolment ratios have risen, UPE targets were missed: in1960s for UPE by 1980; in 1980s for UPE by 2000. The 2015 target (set in2000) will also be missed, though pace of progress may have increased.

 Beyond access issues: from 1960s to 1980s, little international consensus onlearning policies. Eastern bloc emphasized adult literacy (campaigns);
Western bloc emphasized educational achievement in school. Only at
Jomtien, in the wake of breakup of the former USSR, was this stalemate
overcome. The World Bank pushed hard on the issue of learning outcomes4
up to, and after, Jomtien.

International policies at Jomtien (1990)
At Jomtien Thailand, 155 countries, and representatives from 150
governmental and NGOs, established the Education for All agenda an ‘expanded vision of basic education’ - which committed national
governments, international agencies and NGOs to meet the basic
learning needs of all children, youth and adults by the year 2000.
The main goals of this international policy:

 universal access to primary education (UPE) increased equity in education, esp. reduction in gender disparities, but alsothose among poor, rural, minority, other underserved groups
a focus on learning in general (knowledge, skills, values) and learning
outcomes (and not just inputs) in particular:
broadening the means and the scope of basic education: ‘Learning begins
at birth’, provision of education should be diversified; more non-formal
educationenhancing the environment for learning: nutrition, health care, physical andemotional supportive environment
5
strengthening partnerships: eg, across sectors, public-private, etc.

2. Follow-up to Jomtien Declaration
 UNESCO (mainly the Statistical Division, later UIS) was responsible forassessing progress following the Jomtien conference Almost exclusive use of institutional data supplied by ministries of education(of limited value, given expanded Jomtien vision); reluctance to use noninstitutional data sources (eg, household surveys); lack of institutional
autonomy may have influenced quality & rigor of monitoring reports
 Monitoring and assessment of Jomtien outcomes perceived as flawed andincomplete at mid-term review meeting in Amman, Jordan (1995)
 Recall that during the 1990s, economic growth was very weak in certain
regions: most of Africa, Eastern Europe, former USSR. Partly due tostructural adjustment programs imposed by IMF and World Bank Overall, evidence for monitoring Jomtien outcomes ispartial/unsatisfactory; existing evidence points to slow country
progress in attaining policy targets

6International policies set at WEF in Dakar
World Education Forum, 2000, Dakar, Senegal
Convened by UNESCO with four international partners
UNDP, UNFPA, UNICEF and the World Bank 164 countries, and all international agencies and NGOs commit themselvesto the comprehensive Education for All agenda

 Definition of the six EFA goals to be achieved by 2015 (see below), one ofthem—reductions in gender disparities--by 2005

 Donors and NGOs pledge financial support for country implementation of
EFA agenda: ‘No country will lack the necessary resources…’

 Governments and donors call for regular monitoring of EFA progress Many call for improvement in the scientific rigor & quality of EFA
monitoring
Immediately post-Dakar: substantial increase in int’l flow of aid for education;
countries prepare national EFA action plans; a new monitoring mechanism isestablished

EFA Global Monitoring Report7

Education for All goals
and Millennium Development Goals
EFA Goals
1.

2.
3.

4.
5.
6.

Expanding early childhood careand education, especially fordisadvantaged children
Universal primary education
by 2015
Equitable access to learning
opportunities and life skills
programmes for young people
and adults
50% improvement in adultliteracy rates by 2015
Gender parity by 2005 andgender equality by 2015
Improving quality of education

Millennium Development Goals
Goal 2: Achieve Universal primaryeducation(Target 3: Completion of fullprimary schooling by all children by
2015)
Goal 3. Promote gender equality
and empower women(Target 4: Eliminate genderdisparity preferably by 2005 and nolater than 2015)8

Monitoring EFA agenda after Dakar
 EFA Global Monitoring Report, established in 2002, prepared byindependent, interdisciplinary team based at UNESCO to monitor EFA for
int’l. community Directed by well-known economist of education; advised by an editorial board
with representatives from NGOs, international organizations, aid agencies,
UNESCO and its institutes (eg, UIS, IBE) Funded by bilateral aid agencies (DFID, SIDA, etc.) and UNESCO
 Informed by commissioned research papers, on-line consultations andliterature reviews

 Written in English, translated into other 5 UN languages; GMR Summaries
also appear in additional languages

 Launched at global, regional and national venues
Audiences: National policy-makers and planners, NGOs, civil society,advocacy groups, donor agencies, researchers, academics, and media

9Global Monitoring Report: Purposes
The main purposes of the GMR:

Compile reliable and comparable quantitative and qualitative
evidence to examine educational progress in all world regions



Monitor and assess national progress towards the six EFA goals



Draw attention to emerging issues and challenges

Provide a bridge between research & policy communities

Hold the global community and donor agencies to account bymonitoring international aid commitments and disbursements to
EFA
Highlight effective policies and strategies, using case studies andcountry comparisonsOverall, the GMRs have effectively addressed these purposes based on
external reviews, target audience responses, etc. (Also GMR became modelfor other sector monitoring, as well as national/regional monitoring effects) 10EFA Global Monitoring Reports
2002: EFA: Is the World on Track?
2003/4: Gender and EFA: The Leap to Equality
2005: EFA: The Quality Imperative
2006: Literacy for Life
2007: Strong Foundations: Early Childhood Care &Education
2008: Education for All by 2015: Will We Make It?
2009: Overcoming Inequality: Why Governance Matters
2010: Reaching the Marginalized
2011: The Hidden Crisis: Armed Conflict and Education
2012: Youth, Skills and Work (to be launched Sept. 2012)11

3. Assessing EFA progress since Dakar
Based on key findings and projections from nine EFA Global
Monitoring Reports, 2002-2011, initial questions to consider:

1. For which EFA goals has there been real progress since Dakar;
in which areas has progress been minimal and/or largely
unknown?

2. How do we assess this progress? Relative to the target year-2015? Or relative to past trends? If the latter, the more recent
past (1980s 1990s) or the more distant past?

3. What lessons can be drawn from the monitoring of the EFA
goals/ EFA agenda?

4. Thought experiment: If the EFA targets and commitments had
not existed, how much progress in educational access,completion and quality would likely have occurred? [while hardto assess, some indirect evidence can be considered]
12

The EFA Balance Sheet:
Ten years on, major accomplishments (1) Considerable progress in UPE: increases in primary net enrolment ratios from1999 to 2009: Arab States (77%->86%), South and West Asia (79%->91%) and
Sub-Saharan Africa (59%->77%) Other regions already high NERs in 1999. (Howmuch are increases in NER higher than they might have been w/o EFA?) Reduction in out-of-school children of primary school age: worldwide decline
from 104 million (1999) to 67 million (2009)*…projected to be 30-40 million in2015 (biggest change has been in India, SWA)

 Gender parity: considerable progress at primary level among countries with low
NERs. World primary GPI .93 (1999)  .98 (2009); still low in SW Asia. Some
progress at secondary level, but mixed pattern: favors boys in low income
countries, favors girls in middle- and high-income countries

 Reductions in child mortality rates (ECCE and MDG goal) as well as improved
immunization and vaccination rates (MDG goal) Worldwide increase in gross enrolment ratio in pre-primary education: from32% (1999) to 46% (2009). Biggest gains in South/West Asia, East Asia,
Central/Eastern Europe and LAC.
*no data for many countries, worldwide figures based on partial UIS estimates

13

The EFA Balance Sheet:
Ten years on, major accomplishments (2) Adult Literacy: Slow reduction in absolute number of illiterates
and lower adult illiteracy rates (based on conventional measures)

GMR 2003/4

1990

2000

879 million
24.7%

862 million
20.3%

GED 2011
GMR 2011

2008/9(2005-10)

2015
799 million
15%

793 million
16.3%
886 million
24%

796 million
17%

737 million
14%

Decline in adult illiteracy rates was faster in the 1970s-80s than in the 1990s-2000s. Since
1990, main reason for improved literacy figures is China & and a few other countries.

 Goal 3: given different conceptions, little evidence of trends; some
improvement in proxy variables eg, youth literacy rate and secondary
education. In fact big expansion of sec ed unrelated to EFA goals

14

Expanding access to secondary
Secondary gross enrolment ratios, 2009education (in absenceof EFA target)
1970: 196 million

1999: 439 million

2009: 531 million
Especially at lower secondary level,
which, increasingly, is a part of‘basic education’ and compulsory
schooling
Expanding enrolment ratios arenotable in Sub-Saharan Africa, East
Asia, Arab States and Caribbean

Lower

Upper

World

80

56

Arab states

87

48

Central/Eastern Europe

92

84

Central Asia

97

94

East Asia/ Pacific90

66

Latin America/
Caribbean

102

75

North America/
Western Europe

103

98

South and West
Asia

71

44

Sub SaharanAfrica43

27
15

EFA Balance Sheet: Remaining Challenges
 UPE target will be missed in 2015; estimated 30-40 million primary school
age children will still be out of school in 2015; many are in conflict affected
countries. In some countries (eg, Nigeria, Pakistan) policies to expand accessare inadequate: millions will remain out of school.

 Fees still pervasive in many countries reducing access and completion rates
 Major inequalities within countries (based on poverty, residence, ethnicity,
language, etc.) affecting access, retention and completion of primary education.
Difficult to measure and monitor these inequalities over time.

 Child mortality still high in many countries, especially in SSA and South Asia.
Malnutrition and stunting prevalent in the developing world: one child in 3
worldwide. Rising food prices increase nutritional deficits, impair cognitive
development, many children are not ‘ready for school’ (UNICEF).

 Pre-primary enrolment (GER) is below 30% in Sub-Saharan Africa, ArabStates and Central Asia. Rural children and those from disadvantaged
groups are least likely to be enrolled despite clear benefits.
16

EFA Balance Sheet: Challenges (2) Gender goal was missed by most countries in 2005. Many
countries off track for gender parity at either the primary or thesecondary level (or both) by 2015. Girls often suffer from cumulative
disadvantage. Difficulties in monitoring gender equality.

 Adult Literacy: Projection of number of adult illiterates in 2015: 737
million, one of every 7 adults, 60% women, most in South and West
Asia and Africa. If non-dichotomous, direct assessments of literacy
were conducted (eg LAMP, PIAAC), then estimates of low literates
would be considerably higher.

 Skills and non-formal education: many difficulties in getting countries
to report non-formal educational programs outside of the Min of
Education (either in private sector or run by other govt ministries); No
reliable enrollment data about learners in such programs, and thecosts and benefits to such learning experiences are unclear.
17

The EFA Balance Sheet: Quality
Widespread use of proxy measures of quality; growing focus on outcomes.
 Low retention rates or high drop-out rates in primary education: in 41
out of 133 countries with data, less than two-thirds of primary school pupils
reach the last grade
 High pupil-teacher ratios (PTR): many countries have 40+ pupils perteacher and PTRs are rising in countries where expansion is rapid
 Insufficient instructional time: More than 60% of countries allocate
fewer than 800 yearly hours to instruction in grades 1 to 6; too few
countries reach the recommended 850-1,000 yearly instructional hours
 Unavailability/use of learning materials: insufficient access to textbooks,
many are not relevant or match official guidelines, low textbooks per pupil Lack of teacher training: Insufficient number of qualified & well-trainedteachers and poor conditions of employment, esp in low-income countries
 Increase in learning assessments at international, regional and national
levels; in developing world many indicate weak overall learning
outcomes Public educational expenditure per pupil
18

4. Lesson One: Selective and uneven
implementation of EFA policy In its conception EFA is an integrated and holistic policy addressing diverse
educational challenges (ECCE, UPE, gender equality, skills development,
youth and adult literacy), which 164 countries pledged to implement. In
reality, however, national intentions and actions on the ground diverged.
 Country implementation of EFA is partial and uneven. Many countries focus
on some goals and ignore others, either to highlight past achievements or toenable them to demonstrate some progress during a short time span.
 Thus the implementation (and the monitoring) of the EFA goals has resulted
in disconnected silos of programs, analyses, research and policy formation.
Clear progress in UPE, gender parity (due to ceiling effects), otherwise
mixed and slow. Political commitment recedes: after an initial period,
interactions among responsible government agencies--and with otherstakeholders--are less frequent and more discontinuous.
 Few cases of broad, deep synergistic effects from having implemented theentire EFA program in a sustained and comprehensive manner.
19Lesson Two: Serious problems inmonitoring EFA target goals
 Conceptual understandings of key concepts (e.g. life skills, quality education,








literacy) are still contested
On-going debate over the definition and measurement of certain goals: Whichappropriate & valid indicators for goal 3, literacy, quality? Contrast this with
monitoring of MDGs…
Due to differing national conceptions, difficult to compare programs in ECCE,
non-formal education (literacy), even teacher training, across systems
Monitoring can result in simplifying complex issues to common understandings
While data quality improving, still many gaps in data supplied by countries.
Countries without data go unmonitored. For this, and other reasons, somecountries and regions receive disproportionate attention.
Two-year time lag in data availability (eg, only in 2017 will we know 2015
progress); When do countries actually reach UPE?
Weaknesses of national and int’l financial data (eg, excludes south-southtransfers and those by private foundations)
Limited sub-national (institutional) data (beyond periodic household surveys)
or school based surveys, to examine within-country inequalities
20Lesson Three: The growing politics ofmonitoring educational policies
The monitoring of international goals in education is becoming morepoliticized:
 Some countries seek to intentionally misrepresent their education
systems, or dispute UIS estimates, or withhold data.
 Some powerful countries have taken issue with GMR statements andhave done so vigorously in public fora.
 Synthesizing case studies and comparative research to develop clear
global policy messages is tricky, problematic (esp given available
evidence in developing countries). Nuances lost on target audiences.
 Difficult to propose strong policy recommendations, while remaining
attentive to variations across contexts.
 Results of monitoring becomes part of internal political reform process.
 The politics of choosing educational experts when commissioning
background papers for GMR
21

5. Looking to the Future: Questions about
educational policy in the post-2015 era
Asking new questions, debating alternative strategies:

 Should target goals (like those established at Dakar)
continue to be the basis for forging international policies in
education in the future? What are theadvantages/disadvantages?

 If a new international education policy is to be based onsome set of target goals, how might they be reconceived orreconfigured to address old and new EFA challenges?

 What possible alternative scenarios can be considered as
discussions of a new educational agenda in the post-2015
period advance?
22

Should target goals be used as a basis
for educational policy?
Arguments in favor of using target goals. They: Help raise international awareness, create a sense of urgency andsustain stakeholder commitment

 Encourage countries to accelerate action, initiate policy reform andprepare national plans Create frameworks for additional funding and more focused technicalsupport Encourage standardized data gathering, and potentially increase
capacity building Have been used effectively to achieve (some) international policy goals
on or around target dates: e.g., smallpox eradication, child immunization,
fertility reduction. These lessons can be applied to education
23

Shortcomings of using
target goals in education
 In the past, and currently, almost all international goals in education havemissed their targets (Clemens 2004)

 In some countries achieving target goals in EFA becomes an end in itself,
rather than a means to real educational progress (Fielding 1999)

 Goals may not correspond to country-specific education sector plans andbudgets. National priorities may have been inappropriately altered.

 Different understandings of key EFA concepts within and across countries
are papered over; contested interpretations are ignored (Jansen 2005)

 Lack of EFA progress becomes a potential basis for sanctions, or reduced
funding, by international agencies

 Goals reinforce view that educational progress and educational outcomesare fairly easy to measure and quantify

 Goals ignore the daily, often invisible, work of teachers, who seek toimprove student learning and the quality of their lives and opportunities

24

Other issues: stressing equity,
recognizing diversity, new governanceIf target goals remain the basis for international educational policy formation:
Should a single set of target goals be established for all countries? Or perhaps
formulate several different sets of target goals, and thereby create a more diverse
mosaic of ideal educational profiles. This would allow for greater adaptation to
specific national (or sub-national) contexts and enhance implementation prospects.

How strongly should an equity dimension be integrated into the target goals?
Should the goals explicitly seek to overcome global divides, inequalities in
education? Should they focus on the weakest countries? On conflict-affected
countries? On the most corrupt countries? On the countries with the highest levelof gender disparities? Should they clearly address inequalities within countries,
focusing on those individuals who belong to marginalized and vulnerable groups?



To what extent should the measures and indicators to monitor progress in goals be
equity-based? For example, what kinds of equity-based measures of quality
education can be proposed?

The governance and financing of many education systems are less centralized
today than in the past. In developing a new agenda, what should be the role(s) ofofficial entities that set educational policies at the (sub-national) provincial, state, orregional levels? What about non-governmental entities in civil society or in the25
private sector?

6. Towards a new policy: First steps
 Important to conduct preparatory work: what has been done? what
are others doing?
 Important to re-consider working assumptions: How has the worldchanged since 2000? How have developing country capacities
changed since Dakar? Other important assumptions…
 What process is envisioned in formulating a post-2015 policy? e.g.,define a tentative policy outcome, then carry out extensive
consultations; or carry out extensive consultations during which
several options are discussed and seek consensus (if possible) Three possible scenarios of a post-2015 policy, which I have titled:1) ‘More of the Same’2) ‘More of the Same PLUS’3) ‘Something Entirely Different (well almost)’
 What is the timeline for policy consultations, adoption andimplementation?

26

Importance of Preparatory Work
1. Need to carefully examine and review a wide array of existingsources. Lots of interesting material, some of it goes unnoticed.
 E.g., Concluding statements of (and inputs to) recent
international conferences on early childhood in Russia; on
adult education and life long learning in Belem Brazil; others
conferences?
 Recent strategy papers e.g., the World Bank’s Education
Strategy 2020 “Learning for All” and SABER UNESCO’s World Report on Cultural Diversity: Chapter on
Education
 Emerging UNESCO diagnostic frameworks; special toolkits being
developed by the Ed Sector
 Reports at UNICEF??
 Major reports concerning adult learning and education and27
literacy: GRALE, mid term LIFE, and LAMP

Preparatory Work (2)2. Preliminary discussions about post-2015 policy are being
held at UNESCO, the World Bank, UNICEF and other bilateral and multi-lateral agencies (Regional developmentbanks). Worth consulting/ cooperating with scholars andexperts involved.
3. Learn about countries and/or NGOs initiating consultations
and discussions concerning a post-2015 int’l. educational
policy.
4. Develop a clear roadmap (timeline) of the int’l, regionaland national meetings scheduled to take place in the
coming 2-3 years. Decide where and when interventions
would be most informative e.g., at the International
Conference of Education (Geneva) in 2013 or 201428

Preparatory Work (3)5. Review all major initiatives dealing with quality, learningand assessment issues. Examples: OECD’s PIAAC: Programme for the International Assessmentof Adult Competences UNESCO’s LAMP and LIFE
 New directions in future assessments of OECD’s PISA andIEA programs World Bank’s Learning for All strategy, and national
assessment programs (see READ or Russian Education Aidfor Development program)

29

Revisit First Assumptions
 How has the world changed since the Dakar meeting in2000?
 What kinds of capacities in educational administration andpolicy formation have (developing) countries acquired or
improved upon, which they did not possess in 2000 or 1990?
What can be done to build upon these capacities today?
 Should be the aims of international aid and technicalassistance be re-configured in the post-2015 era?

30

7. Scenario One: ‘More of the Same’Focus on the EFA goals in which challenges are
greatest and change the target year to 2025 (2030)
Specifically: Expand access to ECCE for vulnerable and marginalized children
 Reduce repetition rates in primary education and raise transition rates
from primary to secondary education
 Define clear targets for Goal 3 and support country efforts to achievethem Reduce under-enrolment of girls in primary education and underenrolment of boys (and girls, depending on context) in secondary educ
 Expand non-formal education programs to reach out-of-school youth
and adults to augment their knowledge and literacy skills, especiallythose relevant to their livelihoods
 Improve measures and monitoring of quality education
 Increase aid disbursements and make aid more effective
31

Scenario Two: More of the Same PLUS
Adopt all of the strategies noted in Scenario 1 andconsider adding supplemental ones. For example:
 Add new goals, e.g., for teachers, secondary education and/or TVET Address new issues: e.g., shadow education, peace/violence education,
educational for sustainable development

 Redefine existing targets: clarify definitions and specify (multiple)
indicators for each goal, especially for ECCE, Goal 3, literacy, quality,
gender equality (learn from MDG monitoring practices) Strengthen the equity dimension of all the EFA goals
 Develop and integrate new EFA-related measures/indicators into theannual UIS survey of national ministries of education

 Establish a fund for school-based surveys and longitudinal studies
 Collaborate with World Bank on its ‘Learning for All’ Initiative

32

Scenario 3a: Something Different (1)Proposal: Building Policy Synergies through Regional
Networks: The Regionalization of the EFA agenda Admit that international education policies, however well intentioned, do notadequately capture the importance of region-based challenges, contexts,
identities, shared values and worldviews, etc.
 Acknowledge that most countries are especially interested in theirneighbors (as a reference group), especially those with which they sharecultural heritages
 Empower existing regional networks so that they can envision, develop,
implement and monitor region-wide educational policies
 Some regions already doing this: Note the educational targets establishedby Latin American ministers of education (eg Educational Panorama,
Annual Ministerial Reviews, ECOSOC), and see work of ADEA in Africa.
 Problematical regions: SW Asia, East Asia, Arab World, Pacific, Central
Asia. These regions contain huge diversity, many different visions; someexperiencing major transformations; different patterns of policy making (topdown vs bottom up traditions); different roles for civil society partners… And
yet…
33 All monitoring would be region-specificScenario 3a: Something Different (2)Proposal: Building Policy Synergies through Regional
Networks: The Regionalization of the EFA agenda
Capacity-building processes at the regional level: Pool resources to improve regional monitoring of educational trends andpatterns
 Establish or enlarge regional learning assessments
 Establish regional units to collect longitudinal data and conduct school
based surveys, to augment MoE institutional reports sent to UIS
 Develop new education-focused modules for household surveys
 Consider regional collaborations in teacher training and curriculum
development
 Identify regional languages that need to be preserved, prioritized34

Scenario 3b: Something Different (1)Proposal: “Celebrating Global Diversity: Quality Educationand Learning Throughout Life”
 Rather than use target goals, this proposal focus on the theme of ‘Quality
Education and Learning over the Life Course’ as a (the) basic pillar ofinternational educational policy in the post-2015 era
 It assumes: education is a highly valued public good, which can best be
improved if many diverse groups and communities in each country are
openly involved in conceiving, owning and expanding a reformed andequitable system of quality education (as they conceive it to be) The challenge for each country: to create a vision of an ideal framework ofquality education, and then to construct policies that turn this vision into
reality. The vision should link, to the greatest extent possible, quality
education and learning (and its assessment) from birth through earlychildhood, through the years of compulsory schooling, through upper
secondary and tertiary education, into early adulthood programs andbeyond (‘Learning begins at birth’)35

Scenario 3b: Something Different (2)Proposal: “Celebrating Global Diversity: Quality Educationand Learning Throughout Life”
 The role of the international community would be to help facilitate thetransformation of country visions of ‘Quality Education and Learningover the Life Course’ into school realities. This means: enabling
countries to identify potentially relevant and feasible educational issues,policies and mechanisms; facilitating pools of funds for international aid;
and providing technical assistance where needed.
 In practical steps, each country would need to: develop a shared vision of ‘quality education’, and the kinds of learning
outcomes it expects its educational system to facilitate, drawing in parton ideas from the EFA movement as well as the lifelong learning (andadult education) literatures.
 ensure an enabling environment for learning.
 develop a toolkit to measure and monitoring the learning processes
and outcomes.
 acquire the necessary financial resources from both internal and36
external sources.

3b: Establish a Shared Vision of
Quality Education
 Build consensus among multiple stakeholders about theoverarching aims, purposes and goals of education. How is‘quality education’ to be conceived and with what likely
consequences?
 Establish processes by which government officials, teachers,
parents, younger and older learners, (and development
partners) can discuss and debate the kind of quality
education they wish to achieve. Seek common ground andshared visions (eg Finland)
See books by N. McGinn and E. Schefelbein ‘Learning to Educate’ (publishedby IBE) and ‘International Perspectives on the Goals of Universal Basic andSecondary Education’ (published by the American Academy of Arts and37
Sciences, Cambridge, MA).

Establish an enabling environment forlearning
Set standards for, and monitor, the key enabling conditionsof quality basic education. Specifically establish:
 an enforceable legal basis for compulsory and free basic education
 mechanisms to enforce child enrollment and attendance: monitor data on
absence of child labor and school fees (both direct and indirect) tohouseholds for student’s attendance
 a benchmark for actual annual hours of instruction—say 700-800 annual
hours in grades 1-3 and 800-900 in grades 4-8
 a benchmark for class size: 40 students to one trained and qualified
teacher
 a benchmark for the prevalence of written instructional materials:
number of textbooks per pupil
 Define the enabling conditions for literacy and numeracy retention among
adults: address the issue of the literate environment38
 Many others…

Develop a toolkit of indicators and measures ofquality education and learning
 Go beyond the focus on learning outcomes and consider ways tocharacterize the realities of school and classroom life

 Develop snapshots of what actually occurs in classrooms Find ways to evaluate pedagogy, curriculum and teaching methods, andor whether students can utilize acquired basic skills (eg, automaticity inreading) Improve the rigor of national learning assessments, as well as regionalones Address the problem of ‘shadow education’: fee based tutoring andsupplemental schooling Explore ways to study the long-term impacts of learning
39

Improve the financing of quality
education and learning Proposals to improve the national (sub-national) financing of
quality educational provision at different levels
 Building and sustaining capacities for the financing andgovernance of quality education
 Proposals for improving International Aid and Technical
Assistance (see Birger Fredrickson)
 Supporting South-South Exchanges and Sharing;
Collaborations among developing countries; especially small
countries with limited resource bases; Help build up Global
Public Goods—networks, agencies
 Donor – recipient collaborations and cooperation
 Lessening aid dependency: self reliant development
40

Comments and Questions
Your Proposals? Other Directions?

Thank you!
Prof. Benavot’s emails:
abenavot@hiroshima-u.ac.jp
orabenavot@albany.edu

For more information, also visit GMR web site:www.efareport.unesco.org

41