The UIS has partnered with the African Union in bringing the African continental education strategy, CESA 16-25, to the SDG 4 targets.
The African Union has been tasked with the Agenda 2063: The Africa We Want., a concrete manifestation of how the African continent intends on achieving the Pan African Vision of An integrated, prosperous and peaceful Africa, driven by its own citizens, representing a dynamic force in the international arena within a 50-year period, from 2013 to 2063. UNESCO’s regional bureaus of Dakar and Nairobi, and the SDG4-Education 2030 Regional Coordination Group for West and Central Africa are paving the way forward for SDG 4 in the region.
To fulfil its promise to enable African citizens to be "an effective change agent for the continent's sustainable development" as intended by the African Union in the Agenda 2063, the African Union Commission (AUC) has elaborated the comprehensive 10-year Continental Education Strategy for Africa (CESA 16-25).
Continental Education Strategy for Africa (CESA 16-25)
The CESA 16-25 consists of 12 strategic objectives that find correspondence with several SDG 4 targets, and both frameworks require similar data points to track countries’ progress on their achievements. At the sub-regional level, countries are grouped within development communities that meet regularly, but their education-related objectives are in alignment with the CESA 16-25.
- CESA 16-25 Indicators Manual, a repertoire of the main indicators used to measure progress on the 12 Strategic Objectives of the CESA 16-25
To meet the need for setting up meaningful benchmarks for SDG 4 and CESA 16-25 indicators, to which all the countries in the region would commit, the UIS together with the African Union Commission via its Pan African Institute of Education for Development (IPED) conducted several consultations with Member States.
The outcomes of this collaborative work are presented in the Summary Report of Africa Regional Technical Consultations on Regional Benchmarks for SDG 4 and CESA 16-25.
Are benchmarks fair? Are countries far from and close to the goal treated the same way?
All countries committed in 2015 to set their own benchmarks, in other words their own contribution to the achievement of the global education goal by 2030. But the contribution of each country will be measured not in terms of whether they meet the (absolute) level but whether their (relative) progress rate is fast enough. The methodology used sets different levels for each country to achieve but the same progress rate, given their level of educational development, which should be faster than what was observed in the past.
What is the difference between proposed and national benchmarks?
The methodology assesses where countries are and where they could be if they progressed at rates faster than the average progress observed in the past, given their level of educational development. These projected (‘feasible’) values are also proposed benchmarks and the basis for discussion. Each country can then decide whether it wants to set its benchmark at a higher, more ambitious level.
COVID-19 is expected to negatively affect education outcomes. What happens in that case?
For many countries, COVID-19 is expected to slow down or even reverse their educational progress. This factor cannot yet be incorporated in proposed benchmarks that are being set for 2025 and 2030, in other words they are medium- to long-term objectives. By that time, countries should have recovered from the consequences of the pandemic and gone back to their original trajectory. If the consequences of COVID-19 prove more severe, benchmarks may be adjusted around 2025.
Reported latest data seem inconsistent and benchmark values are questionable. What happens in that case?
Despite a range of quality assurance checks, there are cases where some data series fluctuate and no clear trend emerges. A task force of the Technical Cooperation Group on SDG 4 indicators will examine country queries to improve on the data and benchmarks. Ultimately, benchmarks need to align with national planning: the benchmark setting process must empower, not substitute, national planning processes.
My country has no data. What happens in that case?
One of the key objectives of the benchmark setting process is to highlight remaining data gaps in key indicators and mobilize national and international partners to collaborate to ensure that there are data points for all countries for these seven indicators. Plans on filling these gaps will be developed once the benchmarking process has been completed and will be a key action point of the global education coordination architecture.
How have these seven indicators been selected?
It is a challenge to identify indicators that are relevant for all countries and have sufficient data to allow trends to be estimated and projections of feasible progress to be made. The Technical Cooperation Group endorsed the proposal for seven benchmark indicators that met these two criteria at its sixth meeting in August 2019 and adopted the methodology at its seventh meeting in October 2020. The Technical Cooperation Group is the globally representative body responsible for fostering the development of the SDG 4 monitoring framework.
How will the equity benchmark be decided?
Of the seven indicators, it has not yet been decided which indicator will be used to monitor progress on equity. The challenge is that the level of the parity index, which is the global indicator for target 4.5, is affected by the level of the education indicator on which it is applied. For instance, the closer a country is towards achieving universal minimum proficiency, completion or attendance, the closer the value of the parity index comes to 1. Therefore, a more elaborate approach is needed to identify countries that are more unequal than their level of educational development indicates.
Why do we need regional benchmarks in addition to national benchmarks?
The benchmark setting process aims to empower regional organizations to strengthen their peer dialogue process in education. The objective of benchmarks does not stop at setting levels and monitoring whether these levels have been met. Rather, this is only the entry point for the discussion why some countries are and why some countries are not meeting benchmarks – and therefore trigger policy dialogue. However, countries do not easily engage in dialogue at global level given the vast differences between their contexts.
The regional benchmark in our region is set at a very low level. Why is that?
The principle of the regional benchmark is to be sensitive to the countries furthest behind from achieving the target. In homogeneous regions, a regional benchmark will motivate more countries to achieve it. In heterogenous regions, a regional benchmark will be relevant only for a few countries. However, it will foster a sense of collaboration and shared responsibility among members.
It appears that very different concepts of ‘region’ have been used. Why?
It is correct that the regional groupings used in benchmark dashboards are unbalanced. They are provided for (i) SDG regions (ii) UN economic and social commissions (iii) selected regional organizations and (iv) World Bank country income groups. Most of these are for reference. They are more likely to be a basis for discussion in regional organizations that are willing to embrace them and debate them with their members.
Can regional organizations add region-specific indicators?
One of the key objectives of the benchmark setting process is to help align global, regional and national education agendas to improve coherence. The global education monitoring framework is, indeed, a framework. It helps draw attention to issues that matter in education. But it cannot fulfil the needs of all regions or countries. Several regional organizations have their education agendas and, increasingly, many develop their monitoring frameworks. Any regional organization is encouraged to use the opportunity of this global process to add other relevant indicators from its monitoring framework, if it has one and if sufficient data are available. However, it is advisable to add no more than 2-3 indicators.
What is the role of regional organizations in setting regional benchmarks?
Any regional or sub-regional organization can take the lead (and is indeed encouraged) to coordinate the benchmark-setting process for their member states and treat is as part of its own regional education strategy and monitoring framework. This is the approach that has been used by the European Union, which followed a benchmarking setting process in education for the period to 2020.
The benchmarks suggest that the world will not meet SDG 4 target levels. Are benchmarks lowering the level of ambition?
It is true that once all countries have set their benchmarks, aggregating them will not amount to the level of ambition expected in the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. However, this by no means dilutes the agenda. On the contrary, the benchmark setting process is intended to strengthen country commitment to the agenda and the links between national, regional and global education agendas.
- CESA Strategic Objectives and Indicators Monitoring Global and thematic indicators for the SDG 4 by Country – (2010-2020)
- Global and thematic indicators for the SDG 4 by Country (Africa)– (2010-2020)
- Benchmark indicators Data Book
Alignment and coherence between CESA strategic objectives and SDG 4 targets are necessary, but they are not sufficient to guarantee a common monitoring framework. Besides the alignment in high-level strategic objectives, a real correspondence between indicators is required to enable joint monitoring. Such alignment allows for a common understanding of the issues that are being monitored and by which metric, to reduce the burden of all individuals and stakeholders involved.
The following indicators are in both the CESA and SDG Frameworks:
CESA 16-25 | ||||
Strategic Objective (SO) and Indicators |
SDG Indicator |
|||
SO 1 | 1.1 | Percentage of Teachers Qualified to Teach According to National Standards |
4.c.1 | Proportion of teachers with the minimum required qualifications, by education level |
1.4 | Percentage of Teachers who have undergone In-Service Training |
4.c.7 | Percentage of teachers who received in-service training in the last 12 months by type of training |
|
SO 2 | 2.1 | Proportion of schools with access to (i) basic drinking water; (ii) single sex basic sanitation facilities; and (iii) basic hand-washing facilities |
4.a.1 | Proportion of schools offering basic services, by type of service (SDG 4.a.1): (i) basic drinking water; (ii) single sex basic sanitation facilities; and (iii) basic hand-washing facilities |
2.2 | Proportion of schools with (i) adapted infrastructure; (ii) materials for students with disabilities |
4.a.1 | Proportion of schools offering basic services, by type of service (SDG 4.a.1): (i) adapted infrastructure and materials for students with disabilities | |
SO 3 | 3.1 | Proportion of educational institutions with access to (i) electricity (ii) the internet for pedagogical purposes and (iii) computers for pedagogical purposes |
4.a.1 | Proportion of schools offering basic services, by type of service (SDG 4.a.1): (i) electricity (ii) the internet for pedagogical purposes and (iii) computers for pedagogical purposes |
SO 4 | 4.1 | Gross intake ratio to last grade of primary, lower secondary and upper secondary |
4.1.2 | Completion rate (primary education, lower secondary education, upper secondary education) |
4.5 | Proportion of children and young people (a) in grade 3; (b) at the end of primary education; and (c) at the end of lower secondary education achieving at least a minimum proficiency level in (i) reading (ii) mathematics and (iii) science, by sex | 4.1.1 | Proportion of children and young people (a) in grades 2/3; (b) at the end of primary; and (c) at the end of lower secondary achieving at least a minimum proficiency level in (i) reading and (ii) mathematics, by sex | |
4.6 | Proportion of population in a given age group achieving at least a fixed level of proficiency in functional (a) literacy and (b) numeracy skills, by sex | 4.6.1 | 6 Proportion of population in a given age group achieving at least a fixed level of proficiency in functional (a) literacy and (b) numeracy skills, by sex | |
SO 5 | 5.1 | Gender Parity Index for Gross Enrolment Ratio | 4.5.1 | Completion Rate - Adjusted Gender Parity Index (SDG 4.5.1/4.1.2) |
SO 6 | 6.1 | Youth literacy rate | 4.6.2 | Youth/adult literacy rate - Youth |
6.2 | Adult Literacy Rate | 4.6.2 | Youth/adult literacy rate | |
6.3 | Participants in literacy programmes as a percentage of non-literate population |
4.6.3 | Participation rate of illiterate youth/adults in literacy programmes | |
SO 8 | 8.3 | TVET Graduates Labour Force Participation Rate | 4.3.1 | Participation rate of youth and adults in formal and non-formal education and training in the previous 12 months, by sex |
8.6 | Percentage of TVET Graduates who have participated in Apprenticeships | 4.3.3 | Participation rate in technical-vocational programmes (15- to 24-year-olds) by sex | |
SO 9 | 9.2 | Expenditure on Research and Development as a Percentage of GDP |
9.5.1 | Research and Development Expenditure as a proportion of GDP |
SO 10 | 10.3 | Extent to which (i) global citizenship education and (ii) education for sustainable development, including gender equality and human rights, (iii) Peace, Life Skills, Media and Information Literacy education, are mainstreamed in: (a) national education policies, (b) curricula, (c) teacher education and (d) student assessment | 4.7.1 | Extent to which (i) global citizenship education and (ii) education for sustainable development are mainstreamed in (a) national education policies, (b) curricula, (c) teacher education and (d) student assessment |
Financing | F.1 | Expenditure as a percentage of Total Government Expenditure | 1.a | |
F.3 | Public Expenditure on Education as a Percentage of GDP | FFA |
SDG Targets | Continental Education Strategy for Africa (CESA 16-25) |
4.1 Basic Education | SO4: Knowledge, skills, completion rates at all levels |
4.2 Early Childhood Education | |
4.3 TVET / Higher Education | SO4: Knowledge, skills, completion rates at all levels |
SO8: TVET; work and education and training systems | |
SO9: Tertiary education | |
4.4 Skills for Work | SO8: TVET; work and education and training systems |
4.5 Equity | SO5: Gender parity and equity |
4.6 Adult Literacy and Numeracy | SO4: Knowledge, skills, completion rates at all levels |
SO6: Literary programmes | |
4.7 Sustainable Development | SO10: Peace education and conflict prevention and resolution |
4.a Learning Environment | SO2: Infrastructure and learning environment |
SO3: ICT to improve access, quality and management | |
4.b Scholarships | |
4.c Teachers | SO1: Teaching position |
Benchmarks for SDG 4 Indicators: Methodological note
- Available in English
Benchmarks for SDG 4 Indicators: A Political and Technical Basis for Discussion
- Available in English, French, Arabic, and Portuguese
Establishing Regional Benchmarks for SDG4 and the Agenda 2063, a discussion paper
- Available in English, French, Arabic, and Portuguese
REPORTS
Continental Overview: Bridging CESA and SDG4 in Africa
Education Baseline in Africa: Expanding the coverage of CESA indicators
- Available in English
Other initiatives of UIS in Africa
- UIS joins ADEA and CIEFFA in the creation of the KIX Observation on COVID-19 Responses in Educational Systems in Africa by providing technical support