Thoughts before the GMR slides into oblivion
Autor: Jeff Pessi | Publicado: 2014-07-23T07:28:00-07:00





Now that the fireworks set off at the launch of the 2013/14
Education for All Global Monitoring Report ( GMR) have died down, the GMR, as
most publications of similar nature, begins to slowly slide into oblivion.
There are good reasons why we should rescue it though. It is beyond dispute
that the report draws the attention to many issues that are fundamental to us,
teachers. Consequently, we can only benefit from disseminating its
recommendations and using it to further our cause. Nevertheless, there is no
rose – no pun with the former report’s director name intended-&nbsp; without a
thorn and certain GMR conclusions, if unchallenged, risk sending policy makers
in the wrong direction.




Let me be honest with you, from the start. I am not any people actually read it. One of the things that
always called my attention about it is its tendency to serve as a platform for
publicity of NGOs. Year after year, the report highlights successful examples
of programmes run by NGOs in different countries and presents them as either
innovative or “best practice”. Of course, the source of such a conclusion is,
more often than not, a report submitted by the very same organisation. One can
only wonder if an NGO would voluntarily submit a report that says a given
intervention failed. This raises concerns about whether the GMR team looks
critically at such programmes. This, per se, is not a major problem, but it
does gain importance if we fail to take an in-depth look as to why a programme
is considered successful and what lessons we can learn from it.&nbsp; After
all, as stated in the report’s foreword, we must learn from evidence.&nbsp;



The GMR team is entitled to throwing a spotlight on
interventions they consider successful.&nbsp; Nevertheless, when a report that
aims to influence public policy fails to see that what is presented as a
successful NGO intervention is nothing more than what governments should be doing
in the first place, and what teachers’ unions advocate for on a daily basis, I
get worried. I get even more worried when the report makes the case that you
can learn faster in an NGO-run school than in formal government schools. What
is the policy recommendation such a conclusion implies? 



When the GMR does not look further into why the students of
a certain NGO-run school, where the maximum number of students per class is 25
- less than half the nation’s official , not the real pupil teacher
ratio-&nbsp; learn better than those who attend government schools, it is
missing an opportunity. Clearly, smaller number of students in a classroom
allow for better learning. When the GMR says that students who attended an NGO
literacy programme which provided teachers with adequate materials and training
perform better than students whose teachers did not receive any, it is missing
another opportunity to say that adequately trained and supported teachers will
perform better.&nbsp;



It seems that NGO best practice thrives when government
worst practice is in place. Maybe the GMR could focus less on what the NGOS are
doing right and more on what the governments are doing wrong?