Gender and Education for All THE LEAP TO EQUALITY

Chapter 5 - From targets to reform: national strategies in action

Donwload this chapter in PDF

Commitments and time-bound targets

Powerful global symbols If the obligations and promises of governments over the last fifty years had been fulfilled, the dialogue at the World Education Forum would have been very different. Different contexts will require policies tailored to national circumstances but virtually all states have made formal international commitments to Education for All. Indeed, if the obligations and intentions agreed by governments over the last fifty years had been met, the dialogue at the World Education Forum would have been very different. Treaty obligations As indicated in Chapter 1, international commitments are of two types: treaty obligations and political commitments. As regards the former, formal obligations require states to observe and report on their performance under the five major human rights treaties, all of which affirm the right to education. By ratifying these treaties, states create legal obligations towards their own citizens as well as to other governments. At its best, the reporting requirement assists states to improve their performance under each treaty, while indirectly strengthening international understanding and co-operation in support of better education. The reporting record of countries varies, and more than one third of ratifying states have reports overdue. Nevertheless, by far the majority of the world’s states have given full or partial guarantees of the right to education, which represent legal obligations. Box 1.1 in Chapter 1 summarizes these guarantees and Appendix 1 provides a fuller account. Political commitments Governments also agree to international frameworks for action. The United Nations Millennium Development Goals (United Nations, 2000) and, more specifically for education, the World Declaration on Education for All and the Framework for Action to Meet Basic Learning Needs (WCEFA, 1990) and the Dakar Framework for Action (UNESCO, 2000f) are clear cases in point. These commitments are not binding on individual states but they are influential and are increasingly subject to both international and national monitoring processes. The EFA Report is an example of the former, while national reports charting progress towards the achievement of the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) provide an example of the latter4. Regional commitments may also be significant. In the 1960s, a series of regional plans, goals and targets were agreed in Africa, Latin America, and Asia and the Far East (Table 5.4). It is sometimes forgotten that ambitious targets were set for the achievement of universal primary education and other levels of education well before the World Conference on Education for All in Jomtien (Thailand) in 1990. 4. As of August 2003, there are twenty-seven Country Reports on Millennium Development Goals prepared nationally in association with UNDP, 2003a (www.undp.org/mdg/ countryreports.html ).

National commitment is essential International commitments are important but it is at the national level that a public, political and professional coalition around EFA is essential. Constitutional and legislative provision is a backbone for policy and reform. A good number of states enshrine the right to education in their constitutions – 83 out of 131 countries based on one survey of treaty reports, excluding OECD countries (Tomasevski, 2003). For example, under the Constitution of South Africa, the Bill of Rights (South Africa, 1996), guarantees every citizen the right to a basic education including adult basic education and to further education which the state, through reasonable measures, must make progressively available and accessible. The recent amendment to the Indian Constitution strengthens that country’s commitment to education by requiring that the state shall provide free and compulsory education to all children aged 6 to 14 years in such a manner as the state may, by law, determine (India, 2002). The Constitution of Brazil has ten detailed articles on education, covering the principles on which education should be provided, the duties of the state and its constituent federal parts, and stipulates minimum levels of financial provision (Brazil, 1998). Of course, it is the extent to which these rights and obligations translate into enforceable legislation and well-conceived policies, plans and programmes that is the key issue. Constitutional guarantees in themselves do not make the difference. As one commentator (Juneja, 2003) has observed, the legislation that gives effect to the new constitutional clause on free and compulsory education will play a determining role in the future of Indian education. He concludes that what is needed is not legislation in the ‘old compulsory mode’ but legislation that will enforce the rights of every child to good quality education.

Setting national targets Ambitious targets were set for achievement of universal primary education and for other levels of education well before the World Conference on Education for All in Jomtien. Increasingly, governments are setting very specific, time-bound national education goals and targets within their plans and programmes. In part, this reflects their international commitments, including those made in Dakar. In countries where external aid is significant, the modalities of sector-wide approaches, Poverty Reduction Strategies and budget support require the setting of clear and realizable targets. But, more generally, this culture is pervading public service provision, partly in response to rising expectations of what public education systems should be expected to provide. The eighteen countries in Table 5.5 provide a sample of states that have embraced target-setting in a significant way. Thus, they have recommitted themselves to achieving UPE in terms of enrolment and participation within the Dakar and MDG timeframes, interpreting their own national needs and goals within the 2015 objectives. These countries are not only setting UPE targets in terms of net and gross enrolment but are also including measures of participation, survival, graduation and completion. In some cases, intermediate benchmarks are being set, notably in the countries with the lowest NERs, such as Chad, Mozambique and Pakistan. Table 5.5 also includes countries with relatively high NERs, such as Brazil, China and the Philippines. As noted earlier, these heavily populated countries continue to have significant numbers of children out of school. In China, although the exact numbers are not known, one recent study suggests that among urban migrant populations alone, an estimated 1.8 million children, aged between 6 and 14 are not receiving an education (Human Rights in China, 2002)5.In Brazil, the percentage of children out of school has fallen considerably6 but the absolute number remains significant in a country where 45 million people out of 175 million live in poverty. Some countries are setting gender-related targets. Bangladesh, which has made dramatic progress in enabling girls to benefit from schooling, has intermediate and 2015 targets for gender-disaggregated primary-school gross and net enrolments. Chad plans to have parity of enrolments by 2015. The Niger aims to have 42% of all school-age girls in school by 2005, 68% by 2012 and 84% by 2015, while the United Republic of Tanzania is maintaining its commitment to the MDG and EFA goals of gender parity in school enrolments by 2005. Quality-related, time-bound objectives are less apparent and are almost entirely associated with primary education. In all cases proxy indicators are set, as Table 5.6 demonstrates. Jordan has set itself a very precise set of quality-related input targets, as Box 5.2 shows. This represents detailed planning with well-defined markers and indicators for the period up to 2008, under the programme entitled Education Reform for the Knowledge Economy supported by the World Bank. Literacy goals feature as part of education plans in some countries. For example, the Brazilian government has stated boldly that illiteracy will be eradicated by 2010. Bhutan has set 2012 for full adult literacy. China plans to eradicate illiteracy among 15–24-year-olds (an MDG indicator) by 2010. By 2020, it is proposed that illiteracy among the 15–50 age group will be less than 1%. Egypt has endorsed the EFA literacy goal and intends to reduce illiteracy to less than 15% among 15-year-olds and over. India has set a sustainable threshold of 75% literacy for both men and women by 2005. The Lao People’s Democratic Republic is operating in a longer timeframe, planning to increase levels of literacy to 90% for those over 15 by 2020. Pakistan intends to achieve the Dakar literacy goal by 2015. In all these cases, the attainment of these targets will require strengthening of data and data systems on literacy. These are all demanding targets. Their achievement depends in large part on universal primary education of good quality, but all will require attention to educational opportunities outside of the formal system. Some countries give importance to early childhood care and education (ECCE). By 2010, in China, it is planned that the participation rates of children in pre-school institutions should be 80% and 90% by 2020. Egypt has a number of major goals in this area and by 2020 it intends that pre-school provision should be part of free and compulsory basic education, with 75% of the 4–6 age group absorbed by 2015. Pakistan has drafted a three-phase, benchmarked set of proposals to reach 50% participation rates by 2015. Adult learning receives less attention. Brazil is committed to ensuring that by 2006, the first four grades of primary education will be made available to 50% of the age group of 15 and above who have not completed the first level of schooling. The Lao People’s Democratic Republic plans that 50% of the newly literate should continue complementary education to acquire basic educational and vocational skills. 5. Human Rights in China states that its estimates are based on incomplete data and that the figure could be higher than 1.8 million, given that China’s migrant population is estimated at between 100 million and 150 million. 6. The World Bank (2002c) reports that, based on Brazil’s 2000 Census data, the percentage of children aged between 7 and 14 who are out of school dropped from 18.2% in 1992 to 5.1% in 2000.

Industrialized countries The practice of setting education performance-related targets is a common phenomenon in industrialized countries. But here the focus is a little different. Where full primary enrolment and gender parity have been attained, the challenge is to offer education of good quality for all, for life in knowledge-based economies. Problems of social cohesion, poverty in the midst of affluence and changing patterns of gender relationships all affect the definition and role of education in predominantly urban societies. Reforms focused on reducing inequality of learning outcomes in the United States are indicated in Box 5.3. European reforms were debated at the Lisbon Summit of the European Union in March 2000, where it was agreed to make continuous efforts to turn Europe into the most competitive and dynamic knowledge-based economy in the world by 2010. Recognizing that human resources are crucial in realizing this ambition, a benchmarking process is being developed that challenges member states to aim for higher performance levels in education and training. In particular, a list of six Indicators and Reference Levels of European Average Performance in Education and Training has been established for 2010 (European Council, 2003). Together, these targets address four of the Dakar goals (Box 5.4). Both of these examples reflect recognition of the importance of education for social cohesion and economic competitiveness. They also show that governments are less shy than hitherto in applying business techniques, such as benchmarking, to education and training. The international dimension also seems to be important. The regular publication of comparable education statistics of industrialized countries such as Education at a Glance by the OECD and international student achievement surveys such as the Third International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) and the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) have created more transparency regarding the educational performance of participating countries. This has helped to create an increasing sense of educational competitiveness.

Is target-setting productive? At the beginning of the twenty-first century, there is a stronger coalition around global goals and targets than ever before. Targets and indicators should not be confused with wider educational goals and objectives. They are not ends in themselves. At best their use helps to improve performance and enhance accountability (White, 2002). Planning the ways in which targets will be reached should contribute to identifying better resource allocations and working practices. Greater accountability is a positive check on politicians, managers and educators. However, there are dangers that people working within education systems may be driven by the need to reach overly narrow targets that fail to capture the complex notion of quality. At the beginning of the twenty-first century, there is a stronger coalition around global goals and targets than ever before. This includes education. But many educators are not entirely enthusiastic about this trend. As one commentator has noted (Chabbott, 2003), attempts to introduce global targets into the discourse in Jomtien, especially by UNICEF, were not well received. The 1990 Declaration contains no target commitments, rather it states that ‘Countries may wish to set their own targets for the 1990s in terms of the following dimensions’ (i.e. UPE by 2000, reducing adult illiteracy by half). Dakar is more aggressive in this regard. There is a global commitment to achieve the EFA goals, while accepting the need for national interpretation. Chabbott suggests that some educators find targets anathema, believing that education cannot be reduced to the sort of targets that characterize child survival and immunization campaigns. Governments are nevertheless increasingly setting targets for the complex process of education, accepting, as did Dakar, that this is a tool for injecting both urgency and focus. However, in embracing targets for education, it has to be acknowledged that the international record has not been good compared with achievements in other sectors, notably health. In part this can be explained by governments setting targets within their own political cycles, while improvements in education take time. One commentator on the United Nations goals argues for: - framing and measuring goals in ways that contribute to real and desired objectives; - defining different degrees and dimensions of achievement; - recognizing achievements in individual countries and the proportion of people benefiting; - assessing the extent of the advance towards each goal; - measuring advancement against starting points and comparing like with like; - analysing causes for success within this multidimensional analysis. These ideas are put forward in the context of international goals (Jolly, 2002) but they also have relevance to the process of setting and using goals and targets in individual countries. Interpreting the Dakar EFA goals nationally deserves a similar approach.