EFA GlobalMonitoring Report

Educ

atio

n fo

r Al

l

2 0 0 5

THE QUALITYIMPERATIVE

Educat ion for Al l

Educat i on fo r A l l

THE QUALITY IMPERATIVE

UNESCO Publishing

THE QUALITYIMPERATIVE

Educat i on fo r A l l

50

02

EFA

Glo

bal M

onitorin

g R

eport

The designations employed and the presentation of the material in this publication do not imply the expression of any opinionwhatsoever on the part of UNESCO concerning the legal status of any country, territory, city or area, or of its authorities, orconcerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries.

Published in 2004 by the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization7, Place de Fontenoy, 75352 Paris 07 SP

Graphic design by Sylvaine BaeyensPrinted by Graphoprint, ParisISBN 92-3-103976-8

©UNESCO 2004Printed in France

The quest to achieve Education for All (EFA) is fundamentally about assuring that children, youth and adults gain the knowledge and skills they need tobetter their lives and to play a role in building more peaceful and equitablesocieties. This is why focusing on quality is an imperative for achieving EFA. As many societies strive to universalise basic education, they face the

momentous challenge of providing conditions where genuine learning can take place for each and every learner.

The six goals adopted at the World Education Forum in Dakar, Senegal, in April 2000,implicitly or explicitly integrate a quality dimension. Goal 6, in particular, commitscountries, with the support of their EFA partners, to improve all aspects of the quality of education. The benefits of early childhood, literacy and life-skills programmes largelydepend on the quality of their contents and of their teachers. Reducing gender disparitiesin education relies strongly on strategies that address inequalities in the classroom and in society. Primary and secondary education – the central planks of most educationsystems – are expected to ensure that all pupils acquire the knowledge, skills and valuesnecessary for the exercise of responsible citizenship.

Although much debate surrounds attempts to define education quality, solid commonground exists, as this third issue of the EFA Global Monitoring Report makes clear. Quality must be seen in light of how societies define the purpose of education. In most, two principal objectives are at stake: the first is to ensure the cognitive development oflearners. The second emphasises the role of education in nurturing the creative andemotional growth of learners and in helping them to acquire values and attitudes forresponsible citizenship. Finally, quality must pass the test of equity: an education systemcharacterized by discrimination against any particular group is not fulfilling its mission.The EFA Global Monitoring Report 2005 gives powerful evidence of why quality matters for reaching a wide set of individual and development goals, and identifies policy areas that directly impact on learning.

This Report tells both a quantitative and a qualitative story. First, that the number of out-of-school children is declining too slowly to achieve universal primary education by2015. Second, that despite progress, no country outside the developed word has achievedthe four measurable EFA goals. Improving the quality of learning through inclusive, holistic policies is an overriding priority in a majority of countries. The Report highlights a number of urgent needs - for more and better trained teachers, for improved textbooksavailable to all learners, for pedagogical renewal and for more welcoming learningenvironments. While no reform comes without cost, better learning outcomes have beenachieved in very diverse political contexts, and in societies with greatly varying degrees of wealth.

Foreword

50

02

EFA

Glo

bal M

onitorin

g R

eport UNESCO gives very high priority to improving the quality of education. The prestigious

International Commission on Education for the Twenty-first Century (1996), under thechairmanship of Jacques Delors, gave an important and influential lead. My structural reformof the Education Sector at UNESCO included the creation of a transversal Division for thePromotion of Quality Education. In 2003, during the 32nd Session of UNESCO’s GeneralConference, Ministers of Education from over 100 countries participated in a round table toreflect on strategies for steering their systems towards better quality. And, most recently, the47th session of the International Conference on Education, held in Geneva on 8-11 September2004 and organized by the UNESCO International Bureau of Education, was devoted to thetheme of ‘Quality education for all young people: challenges, trends and priorities’.

Every investment in basic education must be measured against how well it serves both to expand access to education and to improve learning for all children, youth and adults. This endeavour begins at home, with a national consensus on quality and a robust long-termcommitment to achieve excellence. However, the international community must also givestrong and consistent support to countries that are boldly seeking to expand and improvelearning for all of their citizens.

I am confident that this Report provides a comprehensive reference to assist national and international decision-makers in defining education priorities that will ultimately shapethe well-being of our societies.

Koïchiro MatsuuraDirector-General of UNESCO

Acknowledgements

We are indebted to John Daniel and Aicha-Bah Diallo, former and acting AssistantDirectors-General for Education and to Abhimanyu Singh, Director of UNESCO’s Divisionof International Coordination and Monitoring for Education for All, and their colleagues for their support in the preparation of this Report.

The Report benefited strongly from the advice of the international Editorial Board and itsformer and present chairpersons Anil Bordia and Ingemar Gustafson, as well as from in-depth guidance from a small advisory group composed of Beatrice Avalos, Martin Carnoy, Krishna Kumar, Marlaine Lockheed, Jaap Scheerens, and Mary Joy Pigozzi from UNESCO.

The EFA Report depends greatly on the work of the UNESCO Institute for Statistics (UIS).Denise Lievesley, Simon Ellis, Albert Motivans Alison Kennedy, Said Belkachla, Said OuldVoffal, Ioulia Sementchouk, Weixin Lu and their colleagues contributed significantly to this Report, particularly in the preparation of chapter 3 and the statistical tables.

Special thanks are due to all those who prepared background papers, notes and boxes for the Report. These were:

Kwame Albert Akyeampong, Terry Allsop, Massimo Amadio, Allison Andersen-Pillsbury, David Atchoarena, Peter Badcock-Walters, Aaron Benavot, Paul Bennell,Carol Benson, Roy Carr-Hill, Linda Chisholm, Mariana Cifuentes, Christián Cox,Charlotte Creed, Anton De Grauwe, Jean-Marie De Ketele, Martial Dembélé, Gusso Divonzir, Alicia Fentiman, Clermont Gauthier, Marelize Görgens, Gilbert Grandguillaume, Sky Gross, Jacques Hallak, Eric Hanushek, Wim Hoppers,Michael Kelly, Krishna Kumar, Sylvie Lambert, Scherezad Latif, Keith Lewin, Shay Linehan, Robert Litteral, Angela Little, Todd Lubart, Phyllis Magrab, Robert Myers, Boubacar Niane, Kicki Nordström, Miki Nozawa, John Oxenham,Christine Panchaud, Kamala Peiris, Joel Pii, Muriel Poisson, Mathilde Poncet, Neville Postlethwaite, Bill Ratteree, Patrick Ressler, Diane Richler, Padma Sarangapani, Jaap Scheerens, Ernesto Schiefelbein, Maria Teresa Siniscalco,Tuomas Takala, Peter Taylor, Nhung Truong, Duncan Wilson, Siri Wormnæs.

The Report also benefited considerably from the advice and support of individuals,Divisions and Units within UNESCO’s Education Sector, the International Institute ofEducational Planning, IIEP, the International Bureau of Education, IBE and the UNESCOInstitute of Education, UIE. UNESCO’s Regional Offices provided helpful advice on country-level activites and helped facilitate commissioned studies.

A number of individuals also contributed valuable advice and comments. These were:

Eric Allemano, Samer Al-Samarrai, David Atchoarena, Rosemary Bellew, Julia Benn, Nancy Birdsall, Cecilia Braslavsky, Mark Bray, Françoise Caillods, Luis Crouch, Bridget Crumpton, Michel Debeauvais, Kenneth Eklind, Dalia Elbatal,Robin Ellison, Paolo Fontani, Richard Halperin, Yoshie Kaga, Stefan Lock, Ute Meir,Peter Moock, Hena Mukerjee, Saul Murimba, Paud Murphy, Miki Nozawa, Petra Packalén, Chantal Pacteau, Ioana Parlea, Mary Joy Pigozzi, Robert Prouty, Abby Riddell, Beverly Roberts, Mark Richmond, Clinton Robinson, Kenn Ross, Paolo Santiago, Simon Scott, Francisco Seddoh, Sheldon Shaeffer, Madhu Singh, Soo Hyang Choi, Benoît Sossou, Adriaan Verspoor, Sue Williams, Cream Wright.

50

02

EFA

Glo

bal M

onitorin

g R

eport

The production of the Report benefited greatly from the editorial expertise of RebeccaBrite. Wenda McNevin and Paul Snelgrove also provided valuable support. We would alsolike to thank Sonia Fernandez-Lauro and her colleagues in the Education DocumentationCentre for their considerable support and assistance.

The analysis and policy recommendations of this Report do not necessarily reflect theviews of UNESCO. The Report is an independent publication commissioned by UNESCO on behalf of the international community. It is the product of a collaborative effort involving members of the Report Team and many other people, agencies, institutions and governments. Overall responsibility for the views and opinions expressed in the Report is taken by its Director.

For more information about the Report, please contact:The DirectorEFA Global Monitoring Report Teamc/o UNESCO, 7 place de Fontenoy75352 Paris 07, Francee-mail: efareport@unesco.orgTel.: +33 1 45 68 21 28Fax: +33 1 45 68 56 27www.efareport.unesco.org

The EFA Global Monitoring Report Team

DirectorChristopher Colclough

Steve Packer (Deputy Director), Albert Motivans (UIS),

Jan Van Ravens, Ulrika Peppler Barry, Lene Buchert,Nicole Bella, Cynthia Guttman,

Vittoria Cavicchioni, Yusuf Sayed, Valerie Djioze, Carlos Aggio, Jude Fransman, Ikuko Suzuki, Delphine Nsengimana,

Liliane Phuong, François Leclercq, Fadila Caillaud, Roser Cusso

Previous EFA Global Monitoring Reports2003/4. Gender and Education for All – THE LEAP TO EQUALITY2002. Education for All – IS THE WORLD ON TRACK?

Headline messages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

Executive summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

Understanding education quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27Why focus on quality? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28Quality for whom and what? Rights, equity and relevance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30Education traditions and associated notions of quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32A framework for understanding, monitoring and improving education quality . . 35Using the framework . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37The structure of the Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

The importance of good quality: what research tells us . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38The impact of education quality on development goals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40International assessments of cognitive achievement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44What determines quality? Lessons from eleven countries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49The quality of ECCE and literacy programmes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56The quality of schooling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60The role of the organization and social context of schools . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75Conclusion: what we know about what matters for education quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77

Assessing progress towards the EFA goals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81Early childhood care and education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82School participation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90Teachers, finance and quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107Quality and equality of learning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119Literacy and skills development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126The Education for All Development Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 136

Policies for better quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 140Setting a policy framework . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 142Start with learners . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143Improving teaching and learning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 146Better teachers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 161Better schools . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 168Support schools, inform policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 177Building support for systemic reform . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 181Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 185

Chapter 4

Chapter 3

Chapter 2

Chapter 1

Contents

50

02

EFA

Glo

bal M

onitorin

g R

eport

Meeting our international commitments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 186Aid flows to education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 188Using aid effectively for EFA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 196Plans, partnerships and quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 205International coordination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 213

Towards EFA: the quality imperative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 223Progress towards the EFA goals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 224What is an education of good quality worth? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 226Quantity alone is not enough . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 226The main determinants of better quality in education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 228Policies for improved learning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 229International dimensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 231

AnnexAppendix . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 236Statistical annex . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 248Glossary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 394References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 398Abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 428

Chapter 6

Chapter 5

Figures

1.1: A framework for understanding education quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

2.1: HIV prevalence in rural Uganda (%) by education category, 1990-2001 (individuals aged 18-29) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45

2.2: Percentage of women who used a condom during sex in previous month . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45

2.3: Percentage of men who used a condom with a recent non-regular partner . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45

2.4: Changes in literacy scores between SACMEQ I and II in six African countries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46

2.5: Performance indicators for primary education in eleven countries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50

3.1: Distribution of countries by the number of years of pre-primary education provided, 2001 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82

3.2: Gross and net pre-primary enrolment ratios, 2001 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83

3.3: Age-specific enrolment ratios for pre-primary and primary education, 2001 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84

3.4: Pre-primary school life expectancy in selected countries by region, 2001 (regional averages and countries with the highest and lowest values) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85

3.5: Pre-primary gross enrolment ratios in 2001 and change since 1998 (countries with GER below 30%) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86

3.6: Net ECCE attendance rates for 3- and 4-year-olds by urban or rural residence, 2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88

3.7: Net ECCE attendance rates for 3- and 4-year-olds by household wealth, 2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88

3.8: Comparison of per-child expenditure at pre-primary and primary levels, 2001 (primary education = 100) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90

3.9: Net and gross enrolment ratios in primary education for countries with NER below 95%, 2001 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92

3.10: Net enrolment ratios in primary education, 1990–2001 and 1998–2001 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94

3.11: Gender disparities in gross enrolment ratio in primary education, 1990, 1998 and 2001(countries with GPI below 0.97 in 1998 or 2001) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96

3.12: Characteristics of pupils entering school late in Uganda and Zambia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97

3.13: Distribution of countries by GIR, medians, quartiles and highest and lowest deciles, by region, 2001 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98

3.14: Cumulative net intake rates by age, in selected countries, 2001 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99

3.15: Survival rates to grade 5 and average number of grades reached when dropping out of primary school, 2001 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100

3.16: Percentage of repeaters in primary schools, 1991 and 2001 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101

3.17: Secondary gross enrolment ratios, 1998 and 2001 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103

3.18: Tertiary gross enrolment ratios, 1998 and 2001 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104

3.19: Gender parity and secondary gross enrolment ratios, 2001 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105

3.20: Gender parity and tertiary gross enrolment ratios, 2001 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106

3.21: School life expectancy by region, 2001 (regional averages and countries with the highest and lowest values) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107

3.22: Percentage of primary-school teachers meeting national qualification standards in sub-Saharan Africa, 2001 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109

3.23: Trained teachers in primary education, 2001 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110

3.24: Primary teachers meeting national standards and adult illiteracy in Brazil, by state, 2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110

3.25: Median pupil/teacher ratios in primary education by region, 1990, 1998 and 2001 (countries with data for all three years; number per region in brackets) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114

3.26: Primary education: pupil/teacher ratios and survival to the last grade, 2001 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116

3.27: Public expenditure on education as a percentage of GDP, by education level, 2001 (regional medians and countries with the highest and lowest values) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117

3.28: Change in total education expenditure in real terms, selected countries, 1998 to 2001 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 118

3.29: Combined literacy performance and cumulative education expenditure to age 15, PISA, 2000/2001 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119

List of figures, tables and text boxes

50

02

EFA

Glo

bal M

onitorin

g R

eport

3.30: Grade 6 assessment results in four Latin American countries, various years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121

3.31: SACMEQ. Percentage of grade 6 pupils reaching proficiency levels in reading in seven African countries, 1995–1998 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121

3.32: PASEC. Percentage of grade 5 pupils with low achievement in six African countries, 1996–2001 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122

3.33: PIRLS. Percentage of grade 4 pupils in the lowest quartile of the international reading literacy scale, 2001 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122

3.34: PISA. Percentage of 15-year-old students in five proficiency levels for reading, 2000–2002 (selected countries) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123

3.35: Socio-economic gradients for literacy performance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124

3.36: Which countries meet the goals of quantity and quality of education? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125

3.37: Adults with primary as their highest education level who report being unable to read, 2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128

3.38: Measures of literacy in Ghana among people aged 15 and over, 1989 and 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129

3.39: Mothers’ literacy and schooling status in the Niger, the Lao PDR and Bolivia, 2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130

3.40: World adult illiterate population, percentage by country, 2000-2004 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131

3.41: Literacy rates for ages 15 to 24 by gender and rural or urban residence in sub-Saharan Africa, 2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133

3.42: Lao PDR. Out-of-school youth by age and gender, 2001 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 134

3.43: EFA Development Index in 2001 and change since 1998 (countries with EDI less than 0.80 in 2001) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139

4.1: Policy framework for improving the quality of teaching and learning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143

4.2: Real salary index for primary and secondary (language and mathematics) teachers, selected countries, 1998 or latest available year (1990=100) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 166

4.3: Mid-career salaries for primary teachers and GDP per capita, 2001 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 167

5.1: Total official development assistance (net disbursements in US$ billions), 1992–2002 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 188

5.2: Bilateral aid commitments to education, 1990–2002 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 189

5.3: Bilateral education aid commitments: percentage of donor’s education aid to its most favoured region, two-year averages for 2001-2002 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 191

5.4: Comparison of priorities assigned to overall education aid and basic education aid, 2001–2002 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 192

5.5: World Bank education lending per year, 1963–2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 194

5.6: World Bank education lending as proportion of total lending, 1960s to 1990s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 195

5.7: Composition of total World Bank education lending, three-year averages for 1992–2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 195

5.8: Harmonization and alignment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 197

5.9: Education Index of Donor Proliferation for 2001-2002 against total Index of Donor Proliferation for 1999-2001 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 200

5.10: Recipient countries by region and number of bilateral donors making education aid commitments, 2001–2002 . . . . 200

5.11: The EFA-FTI process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 215

Tables

2.1: Estimated returns to a standard deviation increase in cognitive skills . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42

2.2: Percentage and mean differences in selected variables between SACMEQ I and II . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47

2.3: Education system and background characteristics in eleven countries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50

2.4: Test scores and changes in real expenditure per pupil, 1970–94 (percentages) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60

2.5: Results of studies investigating the relationship between educational expenditures and outcomes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62

2.6: Percentage distribution of estimated effect of key resources on student performance, based on 376 production function estimates (United States) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65

2.7: Percentage distribution of estimated expenditure parameter coefficients from ninety-six education production function estimates (developing countries) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65

2.8: Effectiveness-enhancing conditions of schooling: results of five review studies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66

2.9: Comparison of traditional and constructivist instructional models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69

2.10: The most important conditions for enhancing teaching effectiveness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71

3.1: Net ECCE attendance rates for 3- and 4-year-olds by gender and number of hours attended, 2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87

3.2: Grouping of countries by levels of primary net and gross enrolment ratios, 2001 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91

3.3: Number of out-of-school children by region, 1998 and 2001 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95

3.4: Expected years of schooling by region, 2001, and change since 1990 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106

3.5: Primary teacher qualification and training levels in fourteen low-income countries, 1995 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109

3.6: Distribution of countries according to primary pupil/teacher ratios, 2001 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113

3.7: Adult literacy (age 15 and over) by gender and region, 2000–2004 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129

3.8: Adult literacy rates in five high-population countries by gender, 1990–1994 and 2000–20041 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131

3.9: Youth literacy (15–24) by gender and region, 2000–2004 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 132

3.10: Distribution of countries by their mean distance from the EFA goals in 2001 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137

3.11: Distribution of countries by change in their mean distance vis-à-vis the EFA goals from 1998 to 2001 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137

4.1: Policy choices in determining national curriculum goals as reflected in the Convention on the Rights of the Child . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147

4.2: Trends in curriculum statements, 1980s to 2000s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 148

4.3: Mean percentage of total instructional time allocated to mathematics in primary and lower secondary education, by grade level and time period (constant cases within grade levels) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 149

4.4: Mean percentage of countries requiring instruction in selected newer subjects in primary and lower secondary education, by grade level and time period . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 151

4.5: Global average of annual instructional time, by grade level and time period . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 151

4.6: Regional average yearly instructional time by grade level in 2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 152

4.7: Languages used in education in China and South-East Asia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 155

4.8: Summative and formative assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 158

4.9: Main models of initial teacher training . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 162

4.10: Average primary-school teacher salary (ratio to per capita GDP) by world region, 1975–2000(countries with per capita GDP below US$2,000 in 1993) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 165

4.11: School improvement: policy implications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 170

4.12: Child-Friendly School Framework . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 172

4.13: The main forms of corruption in the education sector . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 185

5.1: Bilateral aid commitments (total and education), two-year averages for 2001-2002 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 189

5.2: Bilateral aid commitments to education and to basic education, two-year averages for 2001-2002 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 191

5.3: Bilateral aid priorities for education and basic education, 2001-2002 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 192

5.4: Composition of bilateral education assistance, two-year averages for 2001-2002 (percentage) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 193

5.5: Average annual multilateral aid commitments (excluding World Bank), two-year averages for 1999–2000 and 2001–2002 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 194

5.6: Bilateral and multilateral commitments to education, two-year averages for 1999–2000 and 2001–2002 (Constant 2001 US$ billions) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 195

5.7: Recipients of bilateral aid, 2001-2002 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 198

5.8: Index of donor proliferation in education aid . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 199

5.9: PRSPs and education plans by EFA region . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 205

50

02

EFA

Glo

bal M

onitorin

g R

eport

5.10: PRSPs and education plans by country classification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 206

5.11: Aid dependence in education in three African countries: budgets and agencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 208

5.12: Types of funding under BESSIP, 2001 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 209

5.13: BESSIP budget by component and funding type, 2002 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 209

5.14: Zambia Ministry of Education expenditure, 1998–2002 (Constant 2001 Kwacha billions) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 209

5.15: Initial ESIP indicators relating to quality, 2000/2001–2003/2004 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 211

5.16: Status of countries in relation to FTI, February 2004 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 216

5.17: Policy benchmarks for universal primary completion by 2015 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 216

6.1: Quantitative versus qualitative indicators of participation in primary schooling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 227

Text boxes

1.1: The Dakar Framework for Action and Millennium Development Goals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

1.2: Education quality as defined in Jomtien and Dakar . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

1.3: The evolution of UNESCO’s conceptualization of quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

1.4: The aims of education, from the Convention on the Rights of the Child, Article 29 (1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

1.5: The UNICEF approach to quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

1.6: Quality in the humanist tradition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

1.7: Quality in the behaviourist tradition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

1.8: Quality in the critical tradition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

1.9: Quality in the indigenous tradition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

1.10: Quality in adult education approaches . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

2.1: Education and HIV/AIDS risk avoidance: does knowledge equal change? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45

2.2: Major conclusions from more than forty years of international achievement surveys . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48

2.3: Constructivism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69

2.4: The impact of a remedial education programme in India’s urban slums . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74

3.1: Late entry into schooling and concerns about equity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97

3.2: Towards a better international measure of primary education completion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102

3.3: How can we measure teacher quality? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108

3.4: Determining and promoting good-quality teaching in especially difficult circumstances . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111

3.5: HIV/AIDS and teacher attrition trends in Kenya . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112

3.6: Expanding access to primary education: quantity and quality factors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115

3.7: Defining low achievement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120

3.8: International goals and indicators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127

3.9: Measuring ‘good-quality literacy’ in developing countries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128

3.10: Links between mothers’ literacy skills and child schooling status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130

3.11: Literacy-related activities in the home: cross-national evidence from PIRLS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 132

3.12: Reducing illiteracy and improving gender parity are the best predictors of progress towards EFA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 138

4.1: School health and nutrition in Burkina Faso . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 144

4.2: Inclusive education or special education? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 145

4.3: Distance learning for disadvantaged learners . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 145

4.4: The currency of a selection of newer subjects and subject areas at global level . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150

4.5: Open-ended and discovery-based instruction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 153

4.6: Structured teaching . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 154

4.7: Multigrade teaching . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 155

4.8: Initial literacy and the medium of instruction in Zambia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 156

4.9: Elementary schools in Papua New Guinea . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 157

4.10: ‘Unfriendly’ schools . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 160

4.11: Best practice in ongoing professional support . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 163

4.12: New career paths for teachers in South Africa . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 163

4.13: Primary school teachers in Sierra Leone . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 164

4.14: Negotiating salaries, careers and professional concerns in Chile . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 167

4.15: Teacher supply and demand in four African countries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 168

4.16: Whole school development in Ghana . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 171

4.17: Child-seeking, child-centred schools . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 171

4.18: School-based management and better learning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 173

4.19: Organizing the school day in multi-shift systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 177

4.20: Teacher resource centres . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 178

4.21: Cuba: school improvement as a collective effort . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 179

4.22: English-language curriculum development in the Gambia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 180

4.23: Nine ways to make changes happen . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 182

4.24: Involving the Tanzanian Teachers Union in basic education planning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 183

4.25: Bargaining and social dialogue in South African education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 183

5.1: Notional sector classification of budget support: the DFID experience . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 190

5.2: Philanthropic funding of education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 196

5.3: Coordination and harmonization of government and donor practices in Zambia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 198

5.4: European Development Funds: relevance and effectiveness of programme and project aid to education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 202

5.5: Conclusions of Joint Evaluation of External Support to Basic Education in Developing Countries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 202

5.6: DFID aid to primary schooling: issues and lessons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 203

5.7: How should financial aid for education be provided? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 204

5.8: EFA plan developments: some regional experiences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 207

5.9: Evolution of the sector approach in education in Mozambique . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 208

5.10: Policy dialogue on quality in Mozambique . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 210

5.11: Fast-Track Initiative: goals and principles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 214

1. UIS has re-estimated thenumber of illiterates, using thelatest data revisions. The presentestimate is considerably lower thanthe 862 million for 2000 given inEFA Global Monitoring Report2003/4. This is a consequence ofseveral factors, notably the releaseof literacy data from recentcensuses and surveys in manycountries. For instance, China’s2000 census resulted in the UISestimate of the number of adultilliterates in the country decreasingby over 50 million.

2. EDI value can range from 0 to 1.The closer the value is to 1, thecloser a country is to meeting itsgoals and the greater is its EFAachievement.

50

02

EFA

Glo

bal M

onitorin

g R

eport

Early childhood care and education.Progress towards wider access remains slow, withchildren from disadvantaged backgrounds more likelyto be excluded from ECCE. A child in sub-SaharanAfrica can expect only 0.3 years of pre-primaryschooling, compared to 1.6 years in Latin America and the Caribbean and 2.3 years in North America and Western Europe. In many developing countries,ECCE programmes are staffed by teachers with lowqualifications.

Goal 1

Youth and adult learning. Efforts to raisethe level of skills among youths and adults are marginalin the few developing countries that have conductedevaluations of skills development programmes. Progressremains difficult to assess on a global basis.

Goal 3

The six goals: where the world stands

Universal primary education. The number of out-of-school children is declining, having fallen from 106.9 millionin 1998 to 103.5 million in 2001. While progress has been madeglobally, over the past decade, in getting more children into school,the pace remains too slow to achieve UPE by 2015. If past trendscontinue, the world net enrolment ratio will be about 85% in 2005and 87% in 2015. Completion of primary schooling remains a majorconcern: delayed enrolment is widespread, survival rates to grade5 are low (below 75% in thirty of ninety-one countries for whichdata are available) and grade repetition is frequent.

Goal 2

Literacy. About 800 million adultswere illiterate in 2002;1 70% of them live in ninecountries belonging mostly to sub-Saharan Africaand East and South Asia, notably India, China,Bangladesh and Pakistan.

Goal 4

Gender. Although many countries aroundthe world have made significant progress towardsgender parity at primary and secondary levels over thepast decade, large gaps remain, particularly in the ArabStates, sub-Saharan Africa and South and West Asia.Girls accounted for 57% of the out-of-school children of primary school age worldwide in 2001 and for morethan 60% in the Arab States and in South and WestAsia. Girls’ participation remains substantially lowerthan boys’ (a gender parity index below 0.97) in seventy-one out of 175 countries at primary level. Genderdisparities become more extreme at secondary leveland in higher education. Of eighty-three developingcountries with data, half have achieved gender parity at primary level, fewer than one-fifth at secondary andonly four at tertiary. Almost two-thirds of the world’sadult illiterates (64%) are women.

Goal 5 Quality. Countries that are farthest from achieving goals 1to 5 are also farthest from achieving goal 6. Several indicators provideinformation on dimensions of quality. Public expenditure on educationrepresents a higher proportion of GDP in rich countries, where the EFAgoals are already achieved, than in poorer ones, where the coverage ofunder-resourced systems needs to be both expanded and improved.Spending has increased over the past decade in many developingcountries, notably in East Asia and the Pacific and in Latin America andthe Caribbean. Pupil/teacher ratios remain higher than is desirable inmany countries of sub-Saharan Africa (regional median: 44:1) and Southand West Asia (40:1). In many low-income countries, teachers do notmeet even the minimum standards for entry into teaching and manyhave not fully mastered the curriculum. The HIV/AIDS pandemic isseverely undermining the provision of good education and contributingsignificantly to teacher absenteeism. Data from national andinternational test scores show that low achievement is widespread in most developing regions.

Goal 6

The Education for All DevelopmentIndex measures the extent to whichcountries are meeting four of the six EFAgoals: UPE, gender parity, literacy andquality. Several countries – including some of the poorest – sharply improved their EFAachievement levels between 1998 and 2001.This indicates that poverty is not anunavoidable barrier to rapid progresstowards EFA. On the other hand, massiveeducational deprivation continues to beconcentrated in sub-Saharan Africa, the Arab States and South and West Asia.

Forty-one countries (one-third of those forwhich the index can be calculated), most ofthem in North America and Western Europeand Central and Eastern Europe, haveachieved the goals or are close to doing so.

Fifty-one countries have EDI valuesbetween 0.80 and 0.94.2 In about half ofthese, mostly in Latin America, the quality ofeducation is lagging behind the other goals.

Thirty-five countries are far from meetingthe goals, with EDI values below 0.80.Twenty-two of these countries are in sub-Saharan Africa. Three very high-populationcountries of South Asia – Bangladesh, Indiaand Pakistan – are also in this group.

1 6

Headline messages

Better quality education for allThe challenge: Education for all cannot be achieved without

improving quality. In many parts of the world, an enormous gappersists between the numbers of students graduating fromschool and those among them who master a minimum set ofcognitive skills. Any policy aimed at pushing net enrolmentstowards 100% must also assure decent learning conditions andopportunities. Lessons can be drawn from countries that havesuccessfully addressed this dual challenge.

Defining quality: Two principles characterize most attempts todefine quality in education: the first identifies learners’ cognitivedevelopment as the major explicit objective of all education systems.Accordingly, the success with which systems achieve this is one indicatorof their quality. The second emphasizes education’s role in promotingvalues and attitudes of responsible citizenship and in nurturing creativeand emotional development. The achievement of these objectives is moredifficult to assess and compare across countries.

Years in school: Higher quality in education improves school lifeexpectancy, though opportunities differ widely by region. On average for all countries, pupils can expect 9.2 years of primary plus secondaryeducation; a child in sub-Saharan Africa, however, can expect toreceive five to six fewer years of schooling than one in Western Europeand the Americas. People in countries with the highest levels of schoollife expectancy can expect to stay in school up to five times as long asthose in countries at the bottom of the range.

Resources: In low-income countries, increasing spending to provide more textbooks,reduce class size and improve teacher education and school facilities has a positive impacton learners’ cognitive achievement, though the relationship is weaker in richer countrieswhere overall standards of provision are much higher. Improvements in quality can often be achieved at modest cost and are within reach even in the poorest countries. Whererepetition rates in schools are very high, modest increases in quality can be partly self-financing because they reduce the length of time pupils take to complete the cycle.

Better learning: A solid body of evidenceprovides guidance on what makes schoolseffective. It emphasizes the dynamics of theteaching and learning process: how teachersand learners interact in the classroom andhow well they use instructional materials.Policies for better learning must focus on:

Teachers. Achieving UPE alone calls formore and better-trained teachers. Countriesthat have achieved high learning standardshave invested steadily in the teachingprofession. But in many countries, teachers’salaries relative to those of other professionshave declined over the past two decades andare often too low to provide a reasonablestandard of living. Training models forteachers should be reconsidered, in manycountries, to strengthen school-based pre-and in-service training rather than rely onlengthy traditional, institutional pre-servicetraining.

Learning time. Instruction time is a crucialcorrelate of achievement: the broadly agreedbenchmark of 850–1,000 hours of instructionper year for all pupils is not reached in manycountries. Test scores clearly show that theamount of class time spent on mathematics,science and language strongly affectsperformance in these subjects.

Core subjects. Literacy is a critical tool forthe mastery of other subjects and one of thebest predictors of longer-term learningachievement. Reading must be considered apriority area in efforts to improve the qualityof basic education, particularly for learnersfrom disadvantaged backgrounds.

Pedagogy. Many commonly used teachingstyles do not serve children well: they areoften too rigid and rely heavily on rotelearning, placing students in a passive role.Many educational researchers advocatestructured teaching – a combination of directinstruction, guided practice and independentlearning – in a child-friendly environment.

Language. The choice of the language ofinstruction used in school is of utmostimportance. Initial instruction in thelearner’s first language improves learningoutcomes and reduces subsequent graderepetition and dropout rates.

Learning materials. The quality andavailability of learning materials stronglyaffect what teachers can do. Lack oftextbooks can result from an inefficientdistribution system, malpractice andcorruption.

Facilities. To achieve UPE, unprecedentedrefurbishing and building of classrooms isneeded in many countries. Clean water,sanitation and access for disabled studentsare vital.

Leadership. Central governments must beready to give greater freedom to schools, provided that adequate resources are available and that roles and responsibilities are clearlydefined. Head teachers/principals can have astrong influence on the quality of schools.

Coordination: Stronger links among government departmentsresponsible for early childhood care and education, literacy and healthcan help improve quality. In addition, gender-sensitive policies ineducation and broadly-based gender reforms in society can directlyimprove the quality of education.

Benefits: Better education contributes to higher lifetimeearnings and more robust national economic growth, andhelps individuals make more informed choices about fertilityand other matters important to their welfare. For example, it reduces exposure to HIV/AIDS: research shows thatcognitive gains from basic education are the most importantfactor in protecting teenagers from infection. Such benefitsare closely linked to the education levels achieved.

Test scores: International achievementtests reveal that socio-economic statushas a strong influence on levels of schooloutcomes. Both educational and economicpolicies need to address initial andongoing socio-economic inequalitiesamong learners.

Inclusion: Uniform models of reform that ignorethe multiple disadvantages faced by many learnerswill fail. Educational approaches for those who livewith HIV/AIDS, emergency, disability and child labourshould be given more support.

1 7

50

02

EFA

Glo

bal M

onitorin

g R

eport

1 8

In the many countries that are striving to guarantee all children

the right to education, the focus on access often overshadows

the issue of quality. Yet quality stands at the heart of Education

for All. It determines how much and how well students learn,

and the extent to which their education achieves a range of

personal, social and development goals. This Report sets the

quality debate in its historical context and offers a map for

understanding, monitoring and improving quality (Chapter 1).

It synthesizes current knowledge about the factors that

influence quality (Chapter 2) and describes policy options

for improving it, focusing on resource-constrained countries

(Chapter 4). The extent to which the international community

is supporting education in these countries is then analyzed

(Chapter 5). As in the two previous editions, the Report monitors

progress towards the six EFA goals adopted at Dakar in 2000,

with more in-depth attention to quality indicators (Chapter 3).

The Education for All Development Index, introduced in the

previous Report, provides a summary overview of progress

towards four of the Dakar goals in 127 countries.

Executive Summary

5002EFA Global Monitoring Report

1 9

Chapter 1

Understanding education quality

The goal of achievinguniversal primaryeducation (UPE) has been on the internationalagenda since theUniversal Declaration ofHuman Rights affirmed,in 1948, that elementaryeducation was to be madefree and compulsory forall children. This objective

has been restated many times in internationaltreaties and United Nations conferencedeclarations. Many of these instruments, however,remain focused upon the quantitative aspects ofeducation policy. Most recently, the United NationsMillennium Declaration set out the commitment to achieve UPE by 2015, without specific referenceto its quality.

Other important instruments do emphasize theimportance of quality, however. Goal 2 of the DakarFramework for Action (2000) commits nations to theprovision of primary education ‘of good quality’, andgoal 6 includes commitments to improve all aspectsof education quality ‘so that recognized andmeasurable learning outcomes are achieved by all,especially in literacy, numeracy and essential lifeskills.’

A new consensus and impetus is building up aroundthe imperative to improve the quality of education.How well students are taught and how much theylearn are likely to have a crucial impact upon thelength and value of their schooling experience.Quality can influence parents’ choice to invest intheir children’s education. The range of intrinsic and social benefits associated with education, frombetter protection against disease to higher personalincome, is strongly dependent on the quality of theteaching-learning process.

Although there is no single definition of quality, twoprinciples characterize most attempts to define theobjectives of education. The first, which identifieslearners’ cognitive development as the majorexplicit objective of all education systems, sees the success with which systems achieve this as oneindicator of their quality. The second emphasizes

the role of education in promoting commonlyshared values along with creative and emotionaldevelopment – objectives whose achievement ismuch more difficult to assess. Common ground is also found in the broadly shared objectives thattend to underpin debates about quality: respect forindividual rights, improved equity of access and oflearning outcomes, and increased relevance. Theseprinciples have been integrated into the aims ofeducation set out in the Convention on the Rights of the Child (1990), which underpins the currentpositions on quality held by UNESCO and UNICEF.

The various approaches regarding quality have theirroots in different traditions of educational thought.Humanist approaches, behaviourist theory,sociological critiques of education and challenges tothe legacies of colonialism have each enriched thequality debate and spawned distinct visions of howthe objectives of education should be achieved.

To reconcile a range of approaches, the Reportadopts a framework that takes into account fivemajor factors affecting quality: learners, whosediversity must be recognized; the national economicand social context; material and human resources;the teaching and learning process and theoutcomes and benefits of education. By focusing on these dimensions and how they interact, it ispossible to draw up a comprehensive map forunderstanding, monitoring and improving quality.

Chapter 2

The importance of good quality: what research tells us

Extensiveresearch in a range oftraditions hasbeen conductedover the pastforty years on

how better education affects development outcomesand what factors are influential in improving quality.

The evidence is clear-cut on the links between goodeducation and a wide range of economic and socialdevelopment benefits. Better school outcomes – asrepresented by pupils’ achievement test scores –

are closely related to higher income in later life.Empirical work has also demonstrated that high-quality schooling improves national economicpotential. Strong social benefits are equallysignificant. It is well known that the acquisition ofliteracy and numeracy, especially by women, has animpact upon fertility. More recently, it has becomeclear that the cognitive skills required to makeinformed choices about HIV/AIDS risk and behaviourare strongly related to levels of education andliteracy.

Test scores provide one important measure of how well the curriculum is being learned, and helpto indicate achievement at the main exit points of the school system. A number of internationalassessments facilitate comparisons of learningachievements among countries and over time. They reveal, for example, that education quality inAfrica has been particularly challenged in recentyears, with declines in literacy achievement scoresbetween 1995/96 and 2000/01 in one sample ofcountries. Several lessons can be drawn fromstudying the results of international tests over time.First, socio-economic status is very influential indetermining achievement in all contexts. Second,the class time spent on mathematics, science andlanguage strongly affects performance. Third, theteacher’s gender has an impact in many lower-income countries. Several studies also show thatthe impact of pupils’ socio-economic backgroundcan be partly offset by a better school climate,stronger support to teachers, greater schoolautonomy and additional resources, especiallytextbooks.

Identifying the best ways to improve learningoutcomes has been tackled in many different ways. No general theory as to what determines the quality of education has been validated byempirical research. Many approaches in theeconomic tradition have assumed there is aworkable analogy between schools and industrialproduction, in the sense that a set of inputs toschooling is transformed by teachers and pupilsinto a set of products, or outputs, in a fairly uniform way.

Common sense would suggest that the moreresources spent per student, the better theirperformance. In eleven OECD countries, however,mathematics and science test scores generally fell over the quarter century ending in 1995, even

though in many cases per pupil spending more than doubled. In developing countries, more positivelinks are apparent: a majority of studies suggestthat cognitive achievement (as measured bystandardized tests) increases as school expenditure,teacher education and school facilities areenhanced. Even here, however, there are fewuncontested results. Other evidence from a growingbody of experimental studies conducted in low-income countries shows that achievement issignificantly improved by textbook provision,reduction of class size and child-friendly remedialeducation.

And yet schools are not factories producing outputsaccording to recipe in a technically deterministicway. A strong research tradition has sought tounpack the ‘black box’ of education by focusing onthe learning process itself – the creative interactionbetween pupils and teachers in the classroom –with a view to drawing lessons from success. This research shows that good primary schools are typically characterized by strong leadership, an orderly and secure classroom environment,emphasis on acquiring basic skills, highexpectations regarding pupils’ attainment andfrequent assessment of their progress. How wellteachers master the curriculum, the level of theirverbal skills and their expectations of students allcontribute to school quality.

Finally, the social context of the school deservesattention. Studies in the sociology of educati