1. 2016 Global Education Monitoring Report SDG 4 Workshop
#SDG4All
@GEMreport

2. Key monitoring issues by target Recommendations
Purpose of the presentation
SDG 4
Indicator framework
Monitoring process
Key monitoring issues by target
Recommendations
This presentation will take us through: the indicator framework and the monitoring process for SDG 4; some key monitoring issues by SDG 4 target with examples; and a set of recommendations at the national, regional and global level.

3. Indicators for SDGs and SDG4: Process
There have been two parallel but linked process to develop indicators for SDG 4.
For the SDGs as a whole, the objective has been to develop a set of global indicators, approximately one indicator per target. In the case of education, therefore, there are 11 indicators. These were proposed by the Inter-Agency and Expert Group on SDG Indicators (IAEG), which consists of 28 member states. The group, which was established by the United Nations Statistical Commission (UNSC), made its proposal in March Countries will be obliged to report on these indicators – and these form the backbone of the annual SDG report, whose first edition was released in July. Although the list has almost been finalized, there remain several methodological aspects to be refined and the mandate of the IAEG has been extended for that reason.
For SDG4 in particular, it is clear that 11 indicators would be too few to capture the breadth of the goal. For that reason, the international education community has requested the development of additional thematic indicators. The Technical Cooperation Group (TCG), a body consisting of the 28 IAEG member-states plus a number of agencies, is supported by UIS and has as its role to propose these indicators. These indicators are optional but provide a guiding framework.
For the purpose of this presentation, please consult the 2016 report summary, on pages (English version), which contain the global and thematic indicators.

4. Monitoring of SDGs and SDG4: Process
Likewise there are two parallel but linked process to monitor the SDGs and SDG4 in particular.
For the SDGs as a whole, the 2030 Agenda document as well as the January 2016 report of the Secretary General envisages monitoring (or ‘follow up and review’) processes at the global, regional, national and thematic level. At the global level, the apex organization is the High-Level Political Forum, which will meet every year in July. In order to support the process, an SDG Report is being produced by the UN Department for Economic and Social Affairs, which are based on the global indicators. UNESCO and UIS are responsible for coordinating the inputs for SDG4.
However, a monitoring process just at the level of global indicators would be too superficial for the international community interested in each goal. For that reason, the January 2016 report of the Secretary General envisages also a thematic review at goal-specific level and invited inter-governmental bodies to take the initiative. In the case of education, the World Education Forum was mentioned explicitly. The last Forum in Incheon, Republic of Korea, had requested that the Global Education Monitoring Report should be the mechanism to monitor and report upon SDG4.

5. Monitoring of SDG 4: GEM Report mandate
“…request that the EFA GMR be continued as an independent GEM Report, hosted and published by UNESCO, as the mechanism for monitoring and reporting on the proposed SDG 4 and on education in the other proposed SDGs, within the mechanism to be established to monitor and review the implementation of the proposed SDGs” INCHEON DECLARATION
“…the mechanism for monitoring and reporting on SDG 4 and on education in the other SDGs… It will also report on the implementation of national and international strategies to help hold all relevant partners to account for their commitments as part of the overall SDG follow-up and review.”
FRAMEWORK FOR ACTION
The new Global Education Monitoring Report (GEM Report), which builds on the experience of the previous EFA Global Monitoring Report series, had its mandate to assess the progress of education under the new 2030 Agenda confirmed further by the Education 2030 Framework for Action.
This is the first in a 15 year series of Reports. It is clear that the new education agenda, with its greatly expanded scope, poses significant challenges to monitor and report progress on SDG 4. This presentation explores the monitoring section of the Report, which tackles these challenges with examples and key recommendations.

6. Evidence Critical issues Target 4.1: Primary and secondary education
Global indicator: Data exist for some parts of the world that take part in the same learning assessment; e.g. across the 15 countries in the TERCE study in Latin America, 60% of grade 3 students were at level 2 and above in reading – but there is no global data yet
Thematic indicators (examples) (4) Upper secondary completion rate ( ):
- 84% in high income countries - 43% in upper middle income countries
- 38% in lower middle income countries
- 14% in low income countries countries
(5) 263 million children, adolescents and youth are out of school
Evidence
Critical issues
The definition of ‘minimum level of proficiency’ in reading and mathematics by grade 2/3, at the end of primary and at the end of lower secondary is yet to be agreed and countries need to participate in the process
Ensure there is a national learning assessment process in place that monitors learning in a consistent way over time
For each target, selected evidence is presented separately for the global indicators (one per target) and the more numerous, supplementary thematic indicators. A set of critical issues for monitoring is also discussed. Target 4.1 focuses on primary and secondary education.
Although a growing number of countries participate in comparable learning assessments, the international community has not yet defined what should be ‘a minimum proficiency level’ of ‘relevant and effective’ learning outcomes. Therefore comparisons are still only possible between countries which have participated in the same assessment, such as in Latin America. A process led by the UIS has begun to reach consensus. This should happen in an open and collaborative way, taking the priorities of countries into account and helping build robust national learning assessment systems. For this target, it is important to remember that reporting should include all children or adolescents in the relevant age group, including those who have left school early.
With respect to thematic indicators, the new agenda marks an important step forward with its emphasis on completion relative to participation. Only 14% of young people complete upper secondary school in low income countries. The expansion of the scope of the agenda also means that 263 million children, adolescents and youth are out of school.

7. Evidence Critical issues
Target 4.2: Early childhood care and education
Global indicator 1: According to the Early Childhood Development Index, 70% of 3-year olds and 80% of 4-year olds in 56 mostly low and middle income countries were developmentally on track in at least three of the following four domains: literacy-numeracy, physical, social-emotional, and learning
Global indicator 2: 67% of children aged one year before the official primary entry age enrolled in pre-primary (or primary) school in 2014
Thematic indicators (example) (12) Pre-primary education is free and compulsory for at least one year in only 36 countries
Evidence
Critical issues
Agree on a concept of early childhood development that is relevant across cultures and establish a regular mechanism for assessing whether children reach their potential
Monitoring of participation in early childhood learning opportunities requires looking at the full diversity of services, including programmes outside of pre-primary education.
In Target 4.2 on early childhood, two global indicators were proposed exceptionally.
The first focuses on ensuring children begin school ‘developmentally on track’ and ‘ready for primary school’. This is a complex notion as it involves monitoring across cultures with different perceptions of child development. UNICEFs Early Childhood Development Index from 56 countries indicates that about 70% of 3-year-olds and 80% of 4-year-olds were developmentally on track. However, this measure focuses strongly on early literacy and numeracy. The search for a neutral and feasible measure of early childhood development must continue.
The second indicator focuses on participation and shows that 67% of children one year younger than the official primary school entry age were enrolled in pre-primary or primary school. This may overestimate participation. Estimates differ sometimes a lot in some countries when compared with parent responses on actual pre-school attendance. Moreover, more work is needed to capture in surveys the full diversity of relevant programmes outside of formal pre-primary education.
Among thematic indicators, one example is the weak provision of free and compulsory pre-primary education, which is free and compulsory for at least one year in only 36 countries.

8. Evidence Critical issues
Target 4.3: TVET, tertiary and adult education
Global indicator: Data exist for some parts of the world that monitor adult education opportunities; e.g. in 2011, across the 28 European Union countries, 37% had participated in formal and non-formal education and training in the previous 12 months – but there is no global data yet
Thematic indicators (example): (13) Tertiary education gross enrolment ratio in 2014: 34%
Evidence
Critical issues
Establish monitoring tools that can capture the large and growing diversity of learning programmes for this target
Costs of TVET, tertiary and adult education must also be monitored to guide government policy on affordability
Target 4.3 captures technical and vocational education and training (TVET), tertiary education – as well as adult education by virtue of the global indicator, which focuses on the percentage of adults who have participated in any kind of education during the previous year. However, currently, only Europe monitors this indicator with a survey every five years. In 2011, 37% of adults participated in non-formal education and 6% in formal education. Other parts of the world need to introduce monitoring tools that capture the diversity of learning opportunities for adults.
Among thematic indicators, the tertiary gross enrolment ratio was 34% in But there is huge disparity across and within countries. Across 76 countries, 20% of the richest 25- to 29-year-olds had completed at least 4 years of tertiary education, compared with less than 1% of the poorest.
What is missing both for tertiary education and TVET are indicators and methods of assessing affordability, which is a key concept in the target and a core issue for policy makers.

9. Evidence Critical issues Target 4.4: Skills for work
Global indicator: Data exist for some parts of the world that monitor ICT skills; e.g. in 2014, across the 28 European Union countries, 65% of adults could send an with an attachment, 44% of adults could use basic arithmetic formulas – but there is no global data yet
Thematic indicator (example): (16) In 2013, the percentage of grade 8 students who had more than the most functional working knowledge of computers as tools was 85% in the Czech Republic but 13% in Thailand and 9% in Turkey
Evidence
Critical issues
Consider how to monitor digital literacy skills and ICT skills in a way which is culturally relevant and suitable
Hold a debate on what (if any) skills for work other than literacy/numeracy need to be monitored on a global scale
Target 4.4 refers to skills for work. However, uncertainty around what skills can apply across economies and jobs and how they can be measured is reflected in the indicators proposed.
Outside of literacy and numeracy, covered under Target 4.6, ICT skills can be a potential candidate as they have become essential to work in diverse contexts and could be measured more systematically. In the European Union, 65% of adults could send an attachment with an and 44% could use basic arithmetic formulas in a spreadsheet in However, only a handful of non-European countries provide such estimates, which are self-reported by individuals.
Digital literacy is a better marker for this target than ICT skills, as it is directly assessed and more related to the use of skills. A digital literacy assessment of grade 8 students in 2013 showed large differences between high and middle income countries. However, monitoring digital literacy globally requires keeping up with rapid technological change and keeping diverse contexts in mind – or else risk measuring a very culturally biased concept.
There has been growing interest in many other skills such as creativity, critical thinking and collaboration, but these are costly to define and monitor on a global scale.

10. Evidence Critical issues Target 4.5: Equity
Global indicator: In 2014, 64% of countries achieved gender parity in primary, 46% in lower secondary and 23% in upper secondary In , according to WIDE, for every 100 of the richest youth who complete upper secondary education, only 7 do so among the poorest youth
Thematic indicator (examples): (18) By one estimate, 40% of people are not taught in a language they speak or understand (19) There is no data on the effectiveness of policies to address disadvantage in education
Evidence
Critical issues
Monitor education disparities not only by gender but also by location and wealth as well as by language, disability and displacement – and ensure countries use the information
Create mechanisms to collect and compare information about policies addressing disadvantage in education – so that similar countries learn from each other
The SDG agenda requires a major shift in monitoring and reporting on inequality to ensure no one is left behind. Target 4.5 reflects concerns about equity in education.
The proposed global measure of inequality is the parity index, which has been used for a long time as a measure of gender disparity. Based on this measure, for example, we know that 64% of countries achieved gender parity in enrolment in primary, 46% in lower secondary and 23% in upper secondary education in 2014.
The parity index can be extended to indicators other than enrolment and characteristics other than gender, comparing children in rural and urban areas or children from the poorest and richest families. For example, in low income countries, for every 100 among the richest youth who complete upper secondary education, only 7 do so among the poorest.
However, the Report also shows a number of challenges with the parity index. For example, countries with higher completion rates appear to have lower inequality – and it is important to be careful with communicating differences between countries. A process to consistently report inequality at a global level drawing on the experience of WIDE is beginning through the Inter-Agency Group on Education Inequality Indicators. But ministries of education in many countries need to do a lot more to begin reporting on (and using) such data.
More broadly, disparities are only one aspect of the target. For example, in the case of gender, beyond parity it is important to consider other aspects of gender inequality, including textbook bias or discriminatory classroom practices, for which no monitoring indicators or tools have been proposed yet.
And other dimensions of inequality deserve attention. For example, by one estimate, about 40% of people around the world are not taught in a language they speak or understand, which is a major barrier to learning - and deserves a consistent monitoring mechanism.
Finally, knowing about inequalities is powerful but not enough. A mechanism is needed for countries to exchange information about what is working in addressing disadvantage in education and learn from each other.

11. Evidence Critical issues Target 4.6: Literacy and numeracy
Global indicator: Data exist for some parts of the world that take part in the same adult skills assessment; e.g. among adults who participated in OECD PIAAC 15% did not have basic literacy skills – but there is no global data yet on the global distribution of youth and adults by proficiency level in literacy and numeracy
Thematic indicators (examples): (23) Over 2005–2014, 758 million adults had no literacy skills (24) Between , only 6% of adults in 29 poorer countries had ever participated in a literacy programme - but there are no global figures
Evidence
Critical issues
Build a national system to directly monitor adult literacy and numeracy skills
Build a national system to monitor participation in adult literacy programmes – and the characteristics of participants
Target 4.6 refers to literacy and numeracy skills. The global indicator shifts attention from thinking whether an individual is literate or not to a more nuanced concept of levels of proficiency in literacy skills. Currently such data is only available for very few, rich countries which participate in relevant assessments. Among adults who participated in an OECD survey, 15% did not have basic literacy skills.
However, as such assessments are prohibitively expensive to run in poorer countries, international coordination will be needed to support countries to develop their own literacy and numeracy assessments. These will need to strike a careful balance between letting a country proceed on its own and ensuring assessments reach global quality standards.
In the absence of data on literacy proficiency levels, reporting based on traditional literacy rates fills the gap. Some 758 million adults, almost two-thirds of them women, lack any literacy skills.
There are major challenges in monitoring adult participation in literacy programmes. This is partly because of the diversity of providers and partly because of the general lack of interest in monitoring adult education opportunities. Analysis of data from household surveys in 29 poorer countries shows that over 2004–2011, only 6% of adults aged 15 to 49 had ever participated in a literacy programme. Most of those were male and from richer households, even though the majority of illiterate adults were female and poor.

12. Evidence Critical issues
Target 4.7: Sustainable development / global citizenship
Global indicator: Based on GEM Report research: 75% of curricula emphasized sustainable development in % of secondary textbooks mentioned human rights in but there is no formal process to assess the extent to which GCED and ESD are mainstreamed in (a) education policies (b) curricula (c) teacher education and (d) student assessments
Thematic indicators (example): (27) The share of 15-year-old students who scored at the lowest level of environmental science knowledge or below was 25% in Canada but over 70% in Indonesia - but no global data on those with adequate understanding of global citizenship / sustainable development issues
Evidence
Critical issues
An approach needs to be taken to collect and communicate information about the content of curricula: coordinate with other countries in the region through regional or international organizations to work on the task
Initiatives to monitor knowledge and skills in these areas must reach common ground and address the tension between national values and commitment to a global agenda
Monitoring progress towards target 4.7 on sustainable development and global citizenship is not easy. The GEM Report feels that this target needs a more rigorous approach towards monitoring the content of education and what is taught in classrooms and offers examples of relevant analyses of curricula and textbooks.
For instance, three-quarters of countries had some emphasis on sustainable development in their curricula over 2005–2015, but far fewer referred to terms related to global citizenship. Only 15% of countries included key terms related to gender equality.
Likewise, close to 50% of secondary school textbooks mentioned human rights over 2000–2013.
A more systematic listing of national curriculum frameworks and textbook content would be informative about national commitment to sustainable development. Such information could be usefully exchanged at the regional level between countries with similar contexts.
Beyond content, it is also essential to think of desirable results. One assessment of grade 8 students in 38 countries showed that only two-thirds were familiar with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Another assessment of scientific knowledge among 15-year old students showed that 25% of those in Canada and more than 70% of those in Indonesia scored at the lowest level or below. But there is no global consensus yet on what these relevant skills are – and what prospects there are for countries to reach common ground.

13. Evidence Critical issues Target 4.a: Learning environments
Global indicator (example): According to UNICEF, among primary schools 71% had adequate water and 69% adequate sanitation - but no global data on electricity, internet and computer availability (and no definition of adjusted infrastructure for students with disabilities)
Thematic indicators (examples): (33) About 40% of 13- to 15-year old students in 37 countries reported being involved in physical fights (34) Schools were used for military purposes in 26 countries between 2005 and 2015.
Evidence
Critical issues
Introduce regular monitoring of school infrastructure
Ensure different types of measures of violence in school are developed and monitored – and work to align with other countries’ definitions
While Target 4a is based on the principles of a child-friendly school – child- centredness, democratic participation and inclusiveness – not all these are possible to monitor at a global level. Attention therefore turns to more measurable aspects of learning environments, starting with infrastructure.
According to UNICEF, 3 in 10 primary schools still lack adequate water supply and sanitation. Evidence is also being collected on the availability of electricity, internet and computers in schools although not yet sufficient to permit global estimates. At the same time more work is needed on other aspects such as standards for students with disabilities – or indeed other aspects such as structural safety.
Among thematic indicators, evidence is accumulating on school-related violence, a global phenomenon. For example, about 40% of 13- to 15-year-old students in 37 countries reported having been involved in physical fights. But better coordination is needed between various international surveys to align definitions of where and how often violence occurs.
This target calls for tracking the number of attacks on schools, teachers and students, which is currently done through media reports. Military use of schools took place in 26 countries between 2005 and Between 2009 and 2012, 1,000 or more education-related attacks took place in 6 countries.

14. Evidence Critical issues Target 4.b: Scholarships
Global indicator: In 2014, US$2.8 billion of aid was allocated to scholarships and imputed student costs but only US$386 million was directed to least developed countries and small island developing states. (but this is partial: only few countries report scholarships as aid)
Thematic indicator: (35) According to GEM Report commissioned research, 25,000 scholarships were offered by government programmes in 2015 (reaching just 1% of mobile students from developing countries)
Evidence
Critical issues
Establish global mechanism for reporting on scholarships that includes information on the number of scholarships and the characteristics of their recipients, including their origin, destination and field of study
Target 4b on scholarships could exacerbate inequality, because beneficiaries tend to come from more advantaged backgrounds and because resources could be used for developing tertiary education systems in the respective countries.
The Report also finds that the formulation of the target is lacking in several respects. For example, it does not specify whether a degree should be completed or whether students should return to their home countries. While all scholarships should be monitored, they should be counted as contributing to the target only if they are at least partly publicly funded, because it is not possible to hold non-government providers to account.
There is no single source of information on scholarship numbers, let alone on recipients’ nationality or fields of study. This Report analysed government scholarship programmes to find that they offered some 25,000 scholarships in 2015, which reached just 1% of mobile students from developing countries. In order to address the surprising lack of information for this target, a new global mechanism is needed for reporting on scholarships that includes information on the scholarships and their recipients, including their origin, destination and field of study.
Aid data can give some information on the volume of scholarships offered using government funds. In 2014, US$2.8 billion in aid was allocated to scholarships and imputed student costs. Only US$386 million of that was directed to least developed countries and small island developing states. But it is a weak choice of an indicator because only a few countries (such as France, Germany and Japan) report scholarships as aid.

15. Evidence Critical issues Target 4.c: Teachers
Global indicator: In 2014, 82% of teachers had the minimum qualifications required to teach in pre-primary education, 93% in primary education, and 88% in secondary education
Thematic indicators (examples): (40) Pupil/trained teacher ratio in primary education: 54 in low income countries (42) In 34 countries that participated in the OECD TALIS, 88% of lower secondary school teachers participated in at least on professional development activity in the previous year - but there are no global data
Evidence
Critical issues
Develop comparable definitions and measures of qualified and trained teachers
Personnel databases need to be better linked to overall EMIS to monitor the distribution of teachers, their working conditions and attrition rates
Consider expanding tools that collect information directly from teachers, for example on their continuous professional development
There is a dearth of data on monitoring target 4c on teachers. In the case of the global indicator, the main challenge is the lack of a consistent definitions of what is a trained teacher, as standards vary a lot across countries. While we know that 93% of primary school teachers are trained, the estimate is hard to interpret given this variation. Nevertheless some interesting patterns emerge: there were 54 pupil per trained teacher in low income countries in 2014.
The target is also quite unambitious in focusing only on the supply of qualified teachers. For that reason, the GEM Report also looks at the issues of teachers motivation and support, which are presented in the Framework for Action. For example, it reviews teacher contracts and attrition. But information is patchy often because personnel databases are not closely linked to overall education management information systems.
Other aspects call for different sources. For example, assessing relative teacher pay requires the use of labour force surveys. Assessing teacher induction or professional development requires direct surveys of teachers. In 34 countries that participated in the OECD TALIS in 2013, 88% of lower secondary school teachers participated in at least one professional development activity in the previous year. Such tools should be considered for use in low and middle income countries.

16. Evidence Critical issues Finance
There is no global indicator but countries have committed to spend at least 4% of GDP and/or at least 15% of government expenditure on education: at least 35 countries spent less than both thresholds
Aid to education needs to increase at least sixfold to fill the annual financing gap, but in 2014 it was below its peak in 2010 by: - 8% in terms of total aid to education - 14% in terms of aid to basic education - 22% in terms of aid to basic education in sub-Saharan Africa
Evidence
Critical issues
A comprehensive picture of all finance sources is needed: institutionalize national education accounts approach to capture government, external and household financing sources – to better understand how costs are shared
A lack of adequate and equitable finance was a key reason why the world fell short of achieving the Education for All goals between 2000 and Yet no SDG 4 target specifically relates to education finance. On the other hand, the Education Framework for Action calls on countries to allocate at least 4% of GDP and at least 15% of total government expenditure to education. On average, the world meets the first threshold but falls short of the second threshold. Worse, there are at least 35 countries that fail to reach both thresholds.
The GEM Report had estimated that in order for low and lower middle income countries to reach the SDG 4 targets, aid would need to increase at least sixfold to fill the US$39 billion annual gap. But in 2014, aid levels were 8% lower than at their peak in 2010, while aid to basic education was down 14% and aid to basic education in sub-Saharan Africa was down 22%.
What is also emerging is that looking separately at financing from governments or donors is not sufficient. To get a comprehensive on how much is being spent on education from all diverse sources, national education accounts are needed following the example of health. This is likely to highlight the extent to which households often have to pick up a large part of the bill. This is especially the case in the poorest countries, where their share of total education spending was almost triple that in the richest countries. GEM Report analysis shows that information on household spending is available in most countries but rarely used.

17. Recommendations: National level
Build capacity
Education ministries should use the findings of household surveys to monitor inequality in their education systems.
Establish a national assessment framework that monitors a range of learning outcomes, including for those who left school early.
A focus on education quality means more than just a focus on learning outcomes: review curricula and textbooks as well.
Monitor a fuller range of lifelong learning opportunities, including adult education.
Share best practices of education policy and systems within organisations of regional cooperation.
Use national education accounts approach to improve monitoring of spending.
Credit: UNESCO/Nguyen Thanh Tuan
Looking at each target separately is likely to overwhelm policy makers as to what needs to be done as a matter of priority. The Report recommends six key steps to strengthen national monitoring of education in the next 3 to 5 years:
Ministries of education are not always aware of the extent of education inequality. Outside of Education Management Information Systems, other evidence produced by national statistical agencies through household or labour force surveys can produce highly relevant information. Ministries of education should be more involved in the design of such surveys and the use of their results.
If they have not done so already, countries should establish a sample-based national learning assessment to monitor progress in a range of learning outcomes over time. They should also seek to monitor the skills of those who have left school early.
Assessing the quality of education cannot be reduced to learning outcomes. It should include looking at policies, curricula, textbooks and teacher education programmes, judging them against the way they address tolerance, human rights, and sustainability, for instance.
Schooling alone cannot deliver all the expected outcomes from improved education by We need to focus on lifelong learning, yet at present, the education opportunities of adults are barely being monitored at all. 
Countries should be encouraged to engage in debates and exchange ideas on good practices of key education policies, for example how to address disadvantage in education. This could be best achieved within regional organizations engaged in education, as examples from Europe and Latin America suggest.
Finally, countries are encouraged to adopt a national education accounts approach to improve monitoring of education spending not only from governments and donors but also from households, which would help understand better whether the costs are shared fairly.

18. Recommendations: Regional level
Support peer learning
Countries should be encouraged to voluntarily exchange information on education systems and policies with other countries in the region to better understand good practices and challenges
Involve regional organizations to facilitate such exchanges
Credit:GEM Report / Anup Vaswani
Countries increasingly collect better and more systematic information on education results through quantitative indicators. But governments also need comparative qualitative information to understand how other countries in a similar situation have responded to address education challenges.
In some parts of the world, countries have engaged in a voluntary exchange of information on their education systems and policies to learn from each other. This has been facilitated by the respective regional organizations, such as the European Union and the Organization of Ibero-American States. The role of regional organizations is critical and can help make the global education agenda more specific to the contexts of their members. The results of regional monitoring are also much more likely to be used in policy-making and sustained over time, not least because governments have an interest in neighbouring countries’ performance.

19. Recommendations: Global level
Generate consensus
Give countries chance to contribute to discussions on SDG 4 indicators in an informed and meaningful way: ensure decision-making mechanism of Technical Cooperation Group strengthens its legitimacy
Foster coordination
Introduce international household survey dedicated to education
Support monitoring of learning outcomes with code of conduct among donors to pool resources
Establish research hub related to the new global indicators
Credit:GEM Report / Sydelle Willow Smith
Finally, the Report has a number of recommendations to make at the global level.
First of all, in the coming months it is expected that the final pieces of the monitoring architecture will be put in place – both through the Inter-Agency and Expert Group on SDG indicators for the global indicators and the Technical Cooperation Group for the SDG4 thematic indicators.
The Technical Cooperation Group, which is being convened by UIS and UNESCO, offered countries a promising forum to contribute to the education monitoring agenda on an ongoing basis. It is important for countries to be supported to contribute to the process in an informed and meaningful way. The monitoring section offers a reference for the forthcoming discussions regarding definitions and methods.
Beyond definitions, there is also the issue of global coordination to develop and provide measurement tools to support the SDG4 monitoring agenda. The GEM Report has three recommendations.
- First, with the expanded agenda and given the considerable gaps in a number of indicators, an international household survey programme dedicated to education is now needed. Existing questions in major cross-country multi-purpose surveys such as the DHS, MICS and LSMS are insufficient. Potential donors need to discuss the cost-effectiveness of a new tool of this kind.
- Second, a consistent approach is needed to support countries to build their national assessment systems to monitor learning outcomes. A code of conduct among donors and a common pool of resources is needed that would help build country capacity without overlaps and help them access shared resources.
- Third, with the expanded scope of the Education 2030 agenda, it is clear many indicators have not yet been measured on a global scale. Several issues of comparability arise, especially those related to learning outcomes, from early childhood development to digital literacy skills. A research hub should be set up to focus on issues related to the global monitoring of education. Education could draw lessons from partnerships or networks in health or agriculture that have pooled research resources to the same effect.
While there has been a lot of discussion on a data revolution driven by technology, it is clear that the main issues in education monitoring for the next 15 years call instead for more resources and better coordination.
We do not need a technology-driven data revolution but rather (i) better coordination between agencies (ii) more resources