International Review of Education (2005) 51:73–83 DOI 10.1007/s11159-005-0592-y
Ó Springer 2005
CRITIQUE AND RESPONSE
UNESCO. 2003. Gender and Education for All: The Leap to Equality. EFA Global Monitoring Report 2003/4. Paris: UNESCO. If there has been one common slogan in the area of education and a single programme for the improvement of education in developing countries since the beginning of the 1990s, it is ‘Education For All’ (EFA). But EFA is not merely a programme and not just a development strategy, nor is it simply an approach to the problems of education in developing countries: It has taken the form of a movement, a philosophy, and a global commitment to education. Indeed, as the first Global Monitoring Report (GMR): Is the World on Track? (2002. Paris: UNESCO) observed, EFA ‘‘is development’’ itself (p. 14). (Although a previous GMR was produced for a High Level Group meeting in 2001, it was not part of the present series of annual reports.) The 1980s witnessed a re-emergence of faith in the role of education in development and of national and international endeavours towards educating society as a whole. The last decade of the 20th century began with the culmination of these efforts at the World Conference on EFA. As many as 155 Member States of the United Nations assembled at Jomtien in 1990 pledged to provide education for all by 2000. The conference, sponsored by the UNDP, UNESCO, UNICEF, and the World Bank and attended by world leaders from around the globe, concluded with the unanimous adoption of the World Declaration on Education for All and a corresponding Frame of Action calling for provision of quality education to all. EFA has subsequently been viewed as a major strategy of development – and more – all over the world. The Jomtien conference was organised in response to widespread concerns about deteriorating education conditions and the end of the Cold War as well as the emergence of new market economies and democracies. The importance of education in national and global development and the need to strengthen educational structures were likewise being recognised. Maladies of the education system were alarming: Just a decade before the turn of the century, that is, at the time of the Jomtien conference, there were 880 million adult illiterates and 130 million out-of-school children in the world. While the world’s population and more particularly the school-age population were increasing rapidly, enrolments and enrolment ratios in schools were either declining or were at best stagnant. Public budgets for education were being
74
Critique and Response
subjected to severe cuts. It was acknowledged that the world-order would be endangered if the growth of an illiterate and unskilled workforce and that of an ignorant and uneducated mankind were to continue unabated. Accordingly, recognising education as a human right, the World Declaration on Education for All stressed meeting basic learning needs; universalisation of access to basic education; and promotion of equity with regard to gender, race and other characteristics including location (rural or urban). Five basic principles guided the declaration on EFA: equity in universalisation of access, emphasis on learning, broadening of the meaning and scope of basic education, improvement in the learning environment, and strengthening of partnerships. In short, EFA was an attempt to envisage a holistic approach to education of society, encompassing formal and non-formal systems of education, adult education, skills for youth, literacy movements and other conventional and non-conventional methods of schooling. Six main areas of action were identified in the Framework of Action adopted in the Jomtien conference: (1) expansion of early childhood care and development activities, (2) universal access to and completion of primary education, (3) improvement in levels of achievement in learning, (4) reduction in adult illiteracy, (5) expansion of basic education and skills training for youth and adults, and (6) increased acquisition of knowledge, skills and values for better living by individuals and families. Major goals and targets for reaching EFA were set as follows: universal access to and 80% completion rate in primary education by 2000; reduction in adult illiteracy rate to half of its 1990 level by 2000, with special emphasis on female literacy; improvement in learning achievements such that at least 80% of the appropriate age-cohort attains or surpasses a defined level of necessary learning achievements; and expansion of early childhood care and development activities, including family and community interventions, especially for the poor, the disabled and disadvantaged children. The Jomtien conference represented a significant turn in the approach of the national governments and of the international organisations to education. First, it marked the emergence of a consensus that education is the single most important critical element in combating poverty, empowering the poor, enhancing economic growth, controlling population growth, protecting the environment and promoting human rights and democracy. Second, the Jomtien conference contributed substantially to expanding the vision and broadening the notion of basic education so as to include early-childhood care and initial education, primary schooling, the learning needs of youths and adults including literacy, skills training and knowledge, and information on social issues, among other points. Following the Jomtien conference, the International Consultation Forum on EFA was set up as a mechanism to promote and monitor progress towards realising the EFA goals during the 1990s. The EFA Forum periodically brought together senior policy-makers in national governments, specialists in the area, and international organisations to deliberate on the progress and the
Critique and Response
75
tasks ahead in high-level meetings. The Jomtien conference and the subsequent meetings had indeed made a difference. The general despair of the 1980s had been largely reversed. Governments and also the international organisations had become serious. It was realised that continuous monitoring of the progress of EFA is important. Attempts were made to review and monitor regularly progress on several indicators. The international forum identified six dimensions and 18 indicators to facilitate proper assessment of the progress made after the Jomtien conference. However, not all countries could pay adequate attention to all of these dimensions and indicators, despite recognising their importance. Given the predominant importance of primary education in EFA, most public efforts were concentrated on getting all children into primary schools by the year 2000. Aspects such as measurement of the achievement levels of pupils and early-childhood development did not receive adequate attention. Monitoring exercises largely focused on the important indicators. But by the target date of 2000, it was realised that most developing countries remained far away from reaching the goals. The Dakar conference accordingly reset these goals: All children were to have access to free and compulsory primary education of good quality by 2015; there was to be 50% improvement in levels of adult literacy by 2015; gender disparities in primary and secondary education were to be eliminated by 2005; gender equality was to be attained in education by 2015 etc. It was also realised that continuous monitoring of progress made would be necessary to see that no country gets off the track and that all countries reach the goals at least by the revised target dates. In this context, the annual monitoring reports serve a very important purpose. The second GMR: UNESCO. 2003. Gender and Education for All: The Leap to Equality. EFA Global Monitoring Report 2003/4, prepared by teams headed by Christopher Colclough, brought out in the third year after the Dakar meeting and the second in this series, represents one such important attempt. The central focus of EFA activities has been on meeting basic learning needs, universalising access to basic education, and promoting equity throughout all distinctions of gender, race and residence. Of the five basic principles guiding the declaration on EFA, equity in access to education is the most important one. The 416-page second GMR focuses on equity, specifically, on gender equality. Even though the subtitle of the present GMR refers to a Leap to Equality, the main title of this document makes it clear that what is primarily at issue is gender equality. In this regard, the document is very focused, although it also addresses other goals of EFA. The first chapter provides an overall background on the importance of education as a right and the importance of gender equality in the overall context of EFA and the Millennium Development Goals. Analysing progress in terms of a variety of indicators such as gross-intake rates, gross/net enrolment ratios, pupil–teacher ratios, repetition rates, retention rates, survival rates, rates of
76
Critique and Response
transition from primary to secondary levels etc., the second chapter assesses progress made in reducing gender disparities in pre-primary, primary, secondary and tertiary education as well as in life skills and literacy. The third chapter focuses on factors responsible for gender disparities, specifically, why girls lag behind boys in education. Some ‘good’ practices are described in the fourth chapter. A review of national strategies of action is undertaken in the fifth chapter, which also gives an idea of the magnitude of the unfinished task and the scale of challenge. Declining foreign aid for basic education composes the theme of the sixth chapter. The report concludes with a brief outline of some strategies for promoting gender equity in EFA. The document is enriched by nearly 100 pages of statistical tables in the Annexes, apart from numerous illustrative boxes, tables and figures in the main text. The Dakar goal related to gender disparity is important for several reasons. It is the only goal which refers to all levels of education. Envisioned is the elimination of disparities in primary and secondary education by 2005, while gender equality is to be achieved in education by 2015. The Dakar goal does not refer to ‘all levels’ of education or higher education explicitly, however, although this can be taken as included in the goal. On the other hand, the reference of the Millennium Development Goals to gender equality and the empowerment of women seems clearer: Gender disparities in primary and secondary education are to be eliminated preferably by 2005 and at all levels of education no later than 2015. Furthermore, the suffix to the Dakar goal focuses on basic education: ‘‘with a focus on ensuring girls’ full and equal access to and achievement in basic education or good quality’’. This may entail a patent under-emphasis of secondary and higher education. The Dakar goal also mentions elimination of gender disparities with respect to primary and secondary education and achievement of gender equality in education. The Millennium Development Goals refer to disparity only. Both goals and the concepts themselves are subject to different kinds of interpretation, and the general tendency of governments has been to minimize the magnitude and intensity of the task. The brief conceptual distinction between gender parity and gender equality in Chapter 2 (p. 44) is interesting, though one might expect a more detailed discussion. It is rightly stated that parity and equality are different: Parity is a numerical concept, while equality is much more – and more difficult to define and to measure. The GMR defines gender equity in such a way as to imply equality of opportunity, equality in learning process, equality of outcomes and equality of external (labour-market) benefits. But as is noted later (p. 116), while parity is a static concept, viewed over time, it can also serve as a more dynamic indicator of change: ‘‘To the extent that progress towards gender parity suggests a weakening of the factors that keep women and men in unequal positions, it represents the first steps towards achieving equality of outcomes by the sexes’’. The definition of ‘equality’ given here seems to be comprehensive in scope, but numerical measures of
77
Critique and Response
parity can be conceived as well with respect to some components of equality in opportunity, in learning processes, or in outcomes and external benefits. They can also be measured to some extent. Concepts such as ‘equality’, ‘equity’, ‘disparity’ and ‘discrimination’ can be understood in different ways. Most importantly, concentration on mere numerical parity may not necessarily lead to equality. In fact, numerical parity in one dimension of enrolments may not necessarily mean parity – even numerical parity – in another important dimension of the same variable. If the relevant age-group population of children is not equally distributed by gender, equal distribution of enrolments may mean disparity in enrolment ratios; or if the distribution of child population is unequal, parity in enrolment ratio may not necessarily mean parity in the distribution of enrolments. This is illustrated in the following Table:
Child population (mln)
Boys
Girls
60
40
20 33
20 50
a
Parity A. Enrolments (mln) B. Enrolment Ratio (%) Disparity A. Enrolments (mln) B. Enrolment Ratio (%) a b
30
20
50
50
Parity in enrolments does not necessarily mean parity in enrolment ratio. Disparity in enrolments does not necessarily mean disparity in enrolment ratio.
As a result, we need to look at a variety of parity ratios, rather than focus on only one parity ratio. However, as a measure of convenience and simplicity, EFA goals have been confined largely to gender parity in enrolment ratios. Apart from gender disparities, no other EFA goal (or Millennium Development Goal, for that matter) refers to secondary and higher education. While all those who favour a holistic and unfragmented approach to education development might be happy with this goal of gender parity in education, it may be inherently defective, as it assumes that gender disparities can be eliminated (or gender equality can be attained) in secondary and higher education without any reference to access, quality and other dimensions of secondary and higher education! There are no goals specified in secondary and higher education either in terms of enrolment ratios and growth in enrolments or with respect to any parameters of policies or plans. One of the crucial assumptions of EFA goals is that universal free and compulsory primary education can be achieved without necessarily considering any measures for the development of secondary and higher education. This has been the practice in many developing countries: to focus all attention on basic education and ignore or neglect secondary and higher education. In fact, many argue that EFA goals can be reached only if secondary and higher education
78
Critique and Response
are completely ignored. The goal in question and the approach adopted basically disregard the interdependencies between different layers of education. After all, it is secondary and higher education which provide teachers, administrators and planners for literacy programmes and for primary education; and it is primary education which provides inputs into secondary and higher education. In addition, demand for primary education can be a function of not just the availability of facilities relating to quality primary education, but also of availability of facilities for good secondary and higher education. If secondary and higher education are not easily available, or costly, people may not wish to send their children to primary schools, as primary education can never be a desirable ‘terminal’ level of education. Hence, the very goals relating to EFA might be at risk if secondary and higher education are not given adequate attention. While the GMR does not recognize explicitly the relationship between different levels of education, the fact that it covers secondary and higher education and discusses some important parameters such as enrolment ratios and gender parity in secondary and higher education is itself a welcome trend. It is to be hoped that such an extension takes place in the case of other EFA goals as well. In examining why girls still lag behind, the GMR rightly highlights the importance of opportunity costs. Although, there are some who believe that opportunity costs are not important in explaining why children do not go to school, as several household-survey-based national studies have shown, a proper definition of opportunity costs does explain a significant proportion of the variation. Opportunity costs should include not only work for wages, but also work in households for wages in cash or in kind as well as work in one’s own families; the view that ‘parents are the main employer’ is to some extent true. The various factors responsible for children’s non-enrolment, never enrolling, and dropping out from schools can be grouped into three: household economic factors (e.g., poverty and opportunity costs), schoolrelated factors (the ability of schools to attract in terms of environment and also the costs of schooling in terms of fees and other charges), and social factors (e.g., tradition). The relative importance of social factors has been declining over the years due to development and modernization. But the first two sets of factors continue to have a very strong influence on children’s enrolment and their continuation in schools. To these traditional sets of factors, HIV/AIDS and the like must be added. It is important that policy measures address all four sets of factors simultaneously. Measures of education development include gross/net enrolment ratios, transition rates, repetition rates, drop-out rates etc. along with composite indices such as mean years of schooling based on levels of educational attainment of population or labour force (see Psacharopoulos, George, and Ana-Maria Arriagada. 1986. The Educational Composition of the Labour Force: An International Comparison. International Labour Review 125(5): 561–574) and the education development index, which takes into consideration literacy and
Critique and Response
79
enrolment ratios (see the United Nations Development Programme. 1992. Human Development Report 1992. New York: Oxford University Press). The GMR gives us yet another composite index, namely, the EFA Development Index (EDI) (see Chapter 2). This index is defined as the arithmetical-mean value of the net enrolment ratio in primary education, the adult-literacy rate, a gender-specific index (simple average value of the gender parity indices in primary and secondary education and adult literacy), and the survival rate to fifth grade in primary education. The EDI has been calculated in the present GMR for 94 countries for which data on all of the four variables were available. Countries are classified into high-EDI, medium-EDI and low-EDI countries. There are well-known problems associated with the construction and interpretation of composite indices; and the members of the GMR team seem to be very well aware of them. Leaving these problems aside, one may fear that in the context of EFA, the use of this particular composite index may lead countries to narrow down their focus to these four aspects to the neglect of other goals. As a whole, the EFA goals refer to six specific dimensions, while the EDI refers to four. By contrast, the Millennium Development Goals require countries to focus in the area of education only on primary completion rates and elimination of gender disparities. Thus, countries focusing on the Millennium Development Goals may choose to concentrate on these two only. All of this may create confusion, if not chaos, among policy-makers and education planners in developing countries in their approach to EFA. Economic and finance ministries interested more in the Millennium Development Goals and associated aid may, in turn, pressure education ministries to concentrate on these alone. In fact, the set of six EFA goals can be viewed as a minimum set. Indeed, the EDI and the Millennium Development goals clearly reveal a phenomenon of ‘minimization of minimum goals of development’! Small repetition rates are generally taken to mean high levels of internal efficiency and vice versa. Accordingly, EFA action plans have set goals of reducing repetition rates in primary education. But repetition rates need not necessarily reflect internal efficiency in schooling. Many countries follow automatic promotion or non-detention policies in primary education. They do not have year/grade-end exams, and as a result, almost all children are promoted to the next grade. This explains the very low rates of repetition in, for example, India and also probably in Tanzania, Botswana, China and Viet Nam compared to France. Similarly, it is rightly noted in the second chapter that the rate of repetition in the first grade is very high in many developing countries (e.g., Nepal, Rwanda, Laos, Cambodia, among others) This could be due to enrolment of a large number of under-aged children in Grade I. There may not be strict regulations on age at the time of entry into Grade I. But these pupils cannot be promoted to Grade II due to constraints on age. The point is that in the absence of any reference to country-specific policies, many of the statistics may not provide any proper insight into the problem. In fact, they may lead to
80
Critique and Response
awkward conclusions, such as that the internal efficiency in Grade I in Niger is higher than that in France and Australia. While several national governments are striving to reach the EFA goals, concrete international commitments to EFA have not been forthcoming to the extent promised. Official development assistance for education both in total and as a percentage of total aid has declined between 1990 and 2001, although there have been some improvements in recent years. It is interesting to note that developed countries display varying kinds of priorities in their aid mechanisms, emphasizing some aspects of EFA goals, or some aspects of MDGs, but not necessarily all, as is shown in the GMR (p. 240). The GMR also underlines problems relating to statistics on aid to education and the need to solve them. A significant difficulty – and otherwise an important contribution – of these annual monitoring reports lies in their statistical information. While several tables in the present report provide a great deal of information, they also highlight quandaries such as the non-availability of data. This appears in the large number of cells marked by asterisks denoting that they do not present actual figures, but instead only ‘estimates’ made by the national authorities or by the UNESCO Institute for Statistics. Moreover, there are a large number of blank cells indicative of an inability even to make some estimates. (Cf. the review of the first GMR by Tilak, Jandhyala B. G. 2003. No ‘Education for All’ Yet. Economic and Political Weekly (22 November): 4959–4963). What are the prospects of reaching EFA goals? An important objective of the annual GMR is to review progress made. In a good number of countries, the situation has worsened between 1990 and 2000. Gross-intake rates, gross/net-enrolment ratios and even gender-parity ratios have declined, apart from the well-demonstrated fact that many countries simply may not be able to reach these goals by the appointed date. It is imperative to examine the factors – policies and strategies both in their design and their implementation – responsible for the decline, the problems countries have faced, and why they are ‘off track’, in order to draw meaningful policy conclusions. With regard to future prospects of reaching the EFA goals, it is forecast that nearly half of adults in Bangladesh, Pakistan and Ethiopia will remain illiterate even through 2015. The world would then still have as many as 800 million adult illiterates, of whom more than one-third would reside in India. Beyond highlighting the magnitude of the problem, however, these reports need to discuss the strategies for addressing it in greater detail. The GMR can take an important lead in this issue, showing how wrong national and even international policies and programmes lead to a worsening of the situation and how strong and effective policies and programmes should be formulated and implemented. In outlining EFA goals formulated at the global level, some necessary policy measures have been taken for granted, even as they have not figured prominently in the global framework for action or even in many national plans of action. One such measure is free education and primary-school fees.
Critique and Response
81
Although one of the Dakar goals specifically refers to free education, it does not seem to have received any noticeable attention. In this context, the discussion on fees and schooling costs in Chapter 3 of the GMR, partly drawn from studies by Katarina Tomasevski and World Bank reports, albeit brief, is indeed revealing. In as many as 95 developing countries, fees – tuition fees along with others – are charged in primary schools. In seven developed countries fees are charged, but not tuition fees. In several countries, certain kinds of illegal fees are charged. As shown in Chapter 5, there is no uniform definition of ‘free’ education across many countries. Many countries which boast of providing free education have defined ‘free’ education exclusively in terms of tuition fees, without regard to any other fees. As a result, the practice of charging non-tuition fees in primary schools has become extensive in many developing countries and also in some developed countries. Numerous studies, some of which are reviewed in the GMR, have found that school fees and other ‘direct’ costs of schooling represent a significant hindrance for low-income groups accessing primary schooling. Given the United Nations 1948 Convention on the Rights of Children and similar other international and national declarations, it is essential that the provision of a truly free education becomes an explicit part of the EFA global as well as national plans of action. As Katarina Tomasevski [Education Denied: Costs and Remedies. London, New York: Zed Books, 2003; see review by Tilak, Jandhyala B. G. 2004. Journal of Educational Planning and Administration 18(1): 136– 139] has shown, few countries having a Poverty Reduction Strategy Policy paper (of the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank, a requirement for aid under the framework of the Millennium Development Goals) have referred to the issue of fees in primary education in their countries. It is important that free education is explicitly stated in the global and national EFA goals. Similarly, one might expect global and national EFA goals to make it crystal clear that reliance on private schools may not be justified, particularly in the case of basic education – both from the point of view of experience and more importantly on the philosophical grounds that the provision of free universal education is a human right. Silence on matters such as free education, public schooling etc. in the GMR tends to cause more problems in reaching EFA goals than it solves. In fact, one can find three kinds of approaches to many education issues adopted in the EFA platforms and in the GMR: 1. clear statements highlighting what must be an imperative with no alternatives. There are quite a number of forceful statements of this kind: EFA is development; education is a right; educational inequality is a major infringement on the rights of women and girls. While these can hardly be contradicted, they have no clear policy significance. They remain rhetorical statements.
82
Critique and Response
2. silence or near-silence on many issues about which there is no clear consensus at global and national levels (e.g., free education, private schools). Since there is no consensus on such issues, silence is viewed for pragmatic reasons as the best method for dealing with them. Only rarely do we find a statement such as: ‘‘All fees must be abolished in primary education.’’ 3. mildly encouraging statements on certain issues (e.g., decentralization, non-governmental organisations). Research evidence on some of these aspects is not unambiguous: Some non-governmental organizations are doing well; but there are many others which are not. Decentralisation works in some contexts, but not in others. The GMR possesses a great potential to influence policy-makers and planners at national and international levels. It may be the only document on EFA likely to be seriously considered by many small and large developing countries and by the international community. Hence, strong and clear statements on the issues are vital. After all, ‘indicativeness’ and mild statements about the decline in international or government expenditure and the creation of inequalities through private schools do not seem to have any effect on most governments or international organisations and their policies and programmes. We need more compelling statements advocating in specific manner the urgency of giving high priority to education. Lastly, the makeup of the GMR deserves a brief comment. A black-andwhite printing on normal paper (such as UNESCO’s Statistical Yearbook) would be easier to read and handle than the present format, with its many tables, boxes and figures in light colours. Many similar reports are nowadays becoming more colourful and heavier with glossy paper, yet as a result they are ironically becoming less reader-friendly. In the case of some reports, glossy and colourful printing are adopted at the cost of intrinsic value – the quality and quantity of statistics and analytical information. National Institute of Educational Planning and Administration, New Delhi
JANDHYALA B. G. TILAK
School fees and the EFA Global Monitoring Report 2003/4 In his review essay, Jandhyala Tilak provides a mainly fair and balanced discussion of the Global Monitoring Report 2003/4 on Gender and Education for All: The Leap to Equality. Most of my quibbles are matters of detail. For example, I believe that his account of the influence over the 1990s of the Jomtien conference is too generous, both as regards its impact on national policy and on opinion in the agency world. More serious comment is needed, however, on his criticism that the Dakar commitment to fee-free education
Critique and Response
83
has not received any noticeable attention in the GMR. The reviewer finds that we are silent on the issues of free education and private schooling, offering the explanation that ‘‘[s]ince there is no consensus on such issues, silence is viewed for pragmatic reasons as the best method for dealing with them’’. In turn, the author urges the GMR to make ‘‘strong and clear statements’’ on these matters so as to advocate action in a specific manner. I find these observations puzzling. The GMR 2003/4 (and indeed its predecessor, the first in the new series: Is the World on Track?) asserts the right of all children to fee-free and compulsory education at the primary level (Chapter 1), and points to the inconsistency of governments’ charging tuition or other fees for school attendance in such circumstances. The evidence presented in Chapter 3 displays the central importance of school fees as a cause of non-attendance and early drop-out from school, just as it documents the frequency with which such charges continue to be levied, particularly in the poorer countries of the world (pp. 135–137). As regards needed reforms, the final chapter gives a central place to the abolition of school fees as a means of achieving universal primary education with gender equality. It shows that school fees are still charged in 26 of the 34 countries which are unlikely to reach the gender goals. In particular, it states that ‘‘the removal of school fees in these countries would probably be the single most effective means of raising primary enrolments and reducing gender disparities in the short term’’ (p. 268). The chapter goes on to argue that the abolition of fees creates a revenue loss either to schools or to the government which needs to be made good, and that the likely enrolment response to the abolition of fees requires still more resources if the quality of schooling is not to be undermined. The report also argues that covering these resource gaps would be an ideal objective for international aid, because such actions would thereby be targeted on achieving increased school-access, on the promotion of greater gender equality in education and thus on poverty alleviation in a broader sense (pp. 268–269). The problems for poorer families caused by the high private costs of schooling are recurring themes throughout the report; and the need to abolish fees and other charges at primary level is strongly asserted. Accordingly, the claim that the GMR is near silent on the matter of fee-free education misrepresents its content and messages. University of Cambridge
CHRISTOPHER COLCLOUGH
