EFA End-of-Decade Note on Quality (Goal 6) for Asia Pacific Region
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1Introduction to End-of-DecadeNotes
2Defining Quality: Concept and Scope of Review
2.1Right to Education, Right to Learning
2.2Scope of Review
3Progress, Issues and Challenges
3.1Learning Outcomes
3.2Instructional Time
3.3Textbooks and Learning Materials
3.4Teachers
3.5Assessment systems
4Priorities and Strategies
1Introduction to End-of-DecadeNotes
(common intro)
The international community, including Governments and development partners, reaffirmed the commitment to achieve Education for All (EFA) by 2015 at the World Education Forum in Dakar, Senegal in April 2000. The Dakar Framework for Action specifies six goals and 12 strategies to achieve EFA.
With the close of the 2000-2010 decade, there is a need to assess where Asia-Pacific as a region, and where countries in the region stand vis-à-vis the EFA goals. Understanding and sharing the information on how much progress has been achieved during the decade and the main barriers to attaining the goals will help countries in the region identify strategies to accelerate the achievement of the EFA goals.
The End-of-Decade Notes take stock of progress and remaining challenges for each EFA goal thus far. The notes highlight innovative approaches of policy reforms and strategies,especially in view of reducing disparities in education, as well asremaining policy, capacity and finance gaps to achieve EFA and the education-related Millennium Development Goals (MDGs).
The notes build on the findings of the Asia-Pacific EFA Mid-Decade Assessment (2006-2008), which examined EFA progress and gaps at the mid-way point of the 2000-2010 decade. The notes further aim to maintain the momentum, energy and commitment to EFA in the region, including on the focuson “reaching the unreached in education” and “EFA with equity”.
2Defining Quality: Concept and Scope of Review
2.1Right to Education, Right to Learning
The role of education in enriching lives of individuals, societies and nations is uncontested. Education helps individuals to learn and develop to their potential, acquiring critical cognitive, social and emotional capacities to make informed choices that matter to his or herdignity and well-being. Better educated people are likely to bemore productive in the workplace, adopt healthier lifestyles,and better cope with risks and vulnerabilities. Benefits accrue not only to individuals and familiesbut also to broader societies and nations, decreasing poverty, improving economic growth and promoting responsible citizenship.
In recognition of these values, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) affirmed that “everyone has a right to education,” and education has since been enshrined in numerous international conventions and treaties that followed, including the Convention on the Rights of the Child (1960). The right of every child to education opportunities has fundamental and intrinsic value, as described by Amartya Sen:
“The elimination of ignorance, of illiteracy... and of needless inequalities in opportunities (is) to be seen as objectives that are valued for their own sake. They expand our freedom to lead the lives we have reason to value, and these elementary capabilities are of importance on their own.”
Together, the World Declaration Forum (1990) and the Dakar Framework for Action (2000) for Education For All have contributed to setting the normative frameworks by which governments around the world invested towards fulfilment of children’s right to education. In many ways, substantial progress has been made in education in the Asia Pacific region and globally. More children are entering schools and staying in schools longer, with improved gender parity, particularly in primary level. Transition to secondary schools is also improving, with increasing number of countries expanding definition of basic education to go beyond primary and into secondary level. While challenges still remain, particularly for children disadvantaged by poverty, geographic isolation, ethnicity and language, the remarkable expansion of access is a reflection of sustained political commitments and effective, innovative investments towards access that have been made by governments, civil societies and communities alike.
Despite increased enrolments, however, there is little indication that children are also learning. Data on learning achievement- the few that are available- suggests that average student learning in developing countries in the region is alarmingly low,with many years of schooling failing to yield even basic literacy and numeracy skills. That children’s time spent in schools is not resulting in increased knowledge and skills, both cognitive and non-cognitive,is a strong indication of the perilous state education quality, and the visible patterns of disparities between and within countries suggests that disadvantages are being reproduced, not mitigated, through education.
The relatively limited progress for quality education compared to access is perhaps not surprising, since for many year, efforts to improving quality of education has been shrouded in ambiguity. The overwhelming emphasis of international treaties placed on participation rather than learning was evident as recently as 2000, with the Millennium Development Goals (2000) declaring explicit target of universal primary education and gender parity, without any concern for the qualitative aspects of how education systems should perform. The World Declaration on EFA in Jomtien (1960) had also made only general references to quality, noting that quality of educationneeded to be improved to enhance relevance and equity in education. The lack of clear standards and targets for quality was a clear reflection of priorities placed on expanding access and resulted in the proliferation of policies that mainly aimed to remove barriers to access. Indeed, in the earlier years of EFA movement, financing gap, infrastructure and other input-based policies have dominated debates on education, and innovations have also focused on many demand-side initiatives, such as abolition of schools fees and targeted scholarships, that did not place learning outcomes as central objectives.[1]
In 2000, the Dakar Framework for Action helped advance the importance of quality, and it is widely recognized that quality of education is at the heart of education and integral to achieving EFA commitments. Under Goal 6, the Framework calls for attention to “improving all aspects of the quality of education, and ensuring excellence of all so that recognized and measurable learning outcomes are achieved by all, especially in literacy, numeracy and essential life skills.” As seen in Box 1, the expanded definition of quality education is provided, including the desirable characteristics of learners, processes, content and systems.
Concept and framework of quality
Despite the increased consensus about the importance of quality education, however, the concept of quality is far from universal and continues to remain a great source of debate. Indeed, the wide range of concepts and standards associated with quality education reflects the diversity in the perceived purpose and objectives of education itself. Nevertheless, the 2005 EFA Global Monitoring Report, The Quality Imperative, identified at leasttwo key elements of quality that are commonly observed in the range of quality formulations in education literature. The two elements- cognitive development and social and emotional development- are considered important aims of education systems, and two of the most well-known definitions of quality education, presented by UNESCO and the Convention on the Rights of the Child, are elaborations based on these two quality elements (see Box 2).
Globally and in the region, greater efforts are now being taken to measure learning outcomes as the ultimate indicator of education quality, as evidenced by increased interest in international assessments like PISA, PIRLS and TIMMS, as well as in various national learning assessments. Efforts to measure non-academic attributes, like values, attitudes, and emotional development, are gradually increasing, although the considerable difficulty in measurement remains a major challenge. In the absence of learning assessments that provide appropriate measures of education outcomes,other indicators such as Survival to Grade 5, Pupil-Teacher Ratio, and Completion rate are also being used as proxies- albeit limited- for learning.[2]
There is also growing body of knowledge on the various dimensions and processes that interact to produce the desired education outcomes. As such, a diverse range of frameworks for quality exists in education literature, and although details may vary, they can be traced back to two main influential discourses: human capital approach and rights-based approaches. Frameworks based on the human capital theory usually emphasize linear “input-process-outcome” models, which accounts for human and resource inputs acting on processes to produce outcomes. “Input-process-outcome” models are widely used by educational economists and serves as the basis for the large body of studies on education production functions, which aim to identify the most effective deployment and use of inputs for quality outputs.[3] Some of the most common quality frameworks are derived from the input-process-output model, including the 2005 EFA GMR Framework for quality, which expands on the model to include dimensions of learner characteristics and context (see Figure 1). By presenting the complexities of interactions within education systems in an efficient manner, this framework can be a useful starting point of analyzing the key building blocks of quality education. It is important to note, however, that relationships among inputs and processes- or, in the framework, “enabling inputs”- and outcomes are not linear in practice, but rather, multi-directional and strongly influenced by context.
Figure 1: Framework for Understanding Education Quality (Source: UNESCO EFA GMR 2005)
In contrast to the human capital approach, the human rights approach emphasizes rights to education, rights in education and rights through education in equal magnitude. Rights-based frameworks not only necessitate the active elimination of all barriers to opportunities to learning, but also note that learning experience itself has intrinsic worth and should promote child rights. Most notable of the rights-based approach to monitoring quality education is the Child Friendly Schools Framework that explains quality to be resting on five key dimensions, including learners, environments, content, processes and outcomes, and founded on the “rights of the whole child, and all children, to survival, protection, development and participation.”[4] In the Asia Pacific region, the framework was later expanded to include a sixth dimension of systems and policies at the regional Save the Children-UNICEF-UNESCO workshop in Pattaya, Thailand in 2005 (see Figure 2). Compared to the “input-process-outcome” models, the CFS Framework provides a comprehensive understanding of quality and, perhaps more importantly, an integral approach to recognizing the diversity of learners and the contextual influences.
Figure 1: Child Friendly Schools Framework (Source: UNICEF, 2005)
While other less mainstream frameworks exist, the influence of these two quality frameworks is reflected in various formulations of quality in national EFA and education documents related to quality in education. In Indonesia and the Philippines, for example, improvement of quality of education is considered as pertaining to improvement of input, process and outputs of education, although detailed indicators may vary.
Still, no single framework of quality can be universally applied, with diversity of economic, political and social-cultural countries affecting what constitutes quality in different contexts. As such, the 2005 EFA Global Monitoring Report recommends countries to identify detailed approaches to monitor and improve quality by undergoing a deliberate process of dialogue that is designed to achieve:
- Broad agreement about the aims and objectives of education;
- A frame for the analysis of quality that enables its various dimensions to be specified;
- An approach to measurement that enables the important variables to be identified and assessed;
- A framework for improvement that comprehensively covers the interrelated components of the education system and allows opportunities for change and reform to be identified.
(EFA Global Monitoring Report 2005: The Quality Imperative)
2.2Scope of Review
In the remaining sections, a review of key progress achieved in the past decade as well as discussion of key issues and challenge will be provided, with the aim to identifying main priority areas and suggested strategies to accelerate progress towards 2015. While the scope of this note does not allow focused review of extensive list of input, process and outcome measures of quality education, a select set of key “building blocks”most commonly associated with quality of learning will be addressed, including learning outcomes, instruction time, textbooks, teachers and assessment systems.[5] Particular focus will be made to review teachers and all variables related to their performance, as they are widely considered the greatest school-level factor in determining quality of learning outcomes. Key strategies such as school management will be discussed as potential priority areas for improving quality.
To the extent possible, analysis of disparities will be provided by dimensions of poverty, location and ethnicity/language, to the extent possible with available data.
Linkages with Other EDNs
Access and quality of education is inextricably linked. Getting children to come to school and stay in school are dependent on how well they are taught, which in turn affects the perceived quality of education by parents and, ultimately, the decision on attendance; Education of poor quality cannot attract and keep students in schools for them to achieve meaningful learning outcomes. Therefore, topics and issues analyzed under Goals 2 and 6 will be mutually reinforcing, and in order to ensure focus and depth in analysis for each note, it is suggested that certain input variables (WASH facilities, school health and nutrition, curriculum and alternative/non-formal delivery) to be covered under Goal 2, while qualitative aspects such as teacher quality issues is discussed under Goal 6. Other topics and issues analyzed under Goals 2 and 6 will be cross-referenced for consistency.
Goal 6 is closely interlinked with all other goals of EFA, from ECD to life long learning, but for the purposes of this Note, primary focus will be on primary and secondary level and academic learning outcomes. Detailed discussions on the quality of early childhood, life skills and lifelong learning, and adult literacy are provided in the Notes for Goals 1, 3, and 4, respectively.
3Progress, Issues and Challenges
3.1Learning Outcomes
Information on what children are learning, who is being left behind, and by how much, is relatively limited, particularly in developing countries in the region. Nevertheless, evidence from learning assessment studies in a select number of countries reveal mixed and limited progress, with average students performing near or below basic competency levels in key areas such as reading and math. In particular, reading levels in early grade is alarmingly low, which seriously jeopardizes learning opportunities in subsequent years.
International assessment studies show that cross-country disparities in learning are large, and within countries, inequity in learning achievement is as high, if not higher, than disparities between countries. Generally, students from developed countries show higher achievement rates than their counterparts in developing countries. At the same time, however, per capita income is only a fraction of what explains student achievement. Indeed, learning opportunities hinge on a multiplicity of factors related to students and parents, schools and education system and inequity in learning tend to be higher in low-income countries suggesting the dual challenge of raising overall as well as equity learning achievement.
National Learning Achievement levels
In an increasingly integrated world economy, how children fare by international benchmarks is an important measure for their future prospects and development. Across the region, an increasing, albeit limited, a number of countries in the region have participated in internationalassessments, making it possible to compare performance levels in key competency areas.
The latest Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) 2009, which assessed the reading, science and mathematics performance of 15-year old children, showed that there is a significant variation in achievement levels among countries in the Asia Pacific region.[6] Performance levels in countries like Republic of Korea, Japan and Singapore are among the highest in the world, with average scores well above the OECD average in all three areas. By contrast, in Thailand, Indonesia and Kazakhstan, achievement levels are near or below 50 percent of OECD average scores in the three subjects. In particular, reading scores near or below baseline proficiency level 2- defined as essential level of skills to participate effectively and productively in society- is of great concern.
Figure 3: Average score for Reading, Math and Science in the Asia Pacific, select countries (2009)
Source: OECD, PISA 2009 Database
Results reveal glaring gaps in learning achievement between developed and developing country students at similar level of schooling, indicating the general rise in learning achievement with national income. At the same time, however, variations in per capita income seem to explain only part of the learning gap between the rich and poor countries. Average reading performances of students in Japan, Republic of Korea and Australia are higher than those of wealthier countries such as the United States. This is also reflected by the performance of students in the affluent state of Qatar, whose average reading score of 382 is much lower than their counterparts’ in Indonesia and Thailand. One of the most striking findings is the achievement levels of first-time participating economy- Shanghai, China- which marked an average score of 600, the highest score in the world by a wide margin. This brings to light that the idea of a world divided into rich and well-educated countries and poor and badly-educated countries is a misconceived one. Indeed, it suggests the wide belief that quality of teachers, schools and systems are equally, if not more, important than the level of financial investment in education.[7]