people and planet

9
are context-specific and difficult to generalize or
compare. Nor is it known to what extent the results
of monitoring exercises will help schools facilitate
learning environments and teachers improve teaching
and learning processes in classrooms. These and related
issues cannot be addressed through statistical tables,
however well aligned with SDG 4 targets. The GEM
Report is intended to provide readers with ways to
frame and interpret quantitative evidence supplemented
with policy analysis and in-depth exploration of
annual themes.
THE LEVEL OF AMBITION IS HIGH, BUT
CAUTION IS NEEDED
Overall, the SDG 4 global indicators match the ambition
of the agenda and greatly expand the scope of education
monitoring. The MDG indicators were narrower,
measuring the primary enrolment rate, the survival rate
to the last grade of primary school, the adult literacy rate
and gender parity.
need resolution, from defining the ‘participation rate
in technical-vocational education programmes’ to
demonstrating what are ‘relevant and effective learning
outcomes’ in primary and secondary education and
an ‘adequate understanding of issues relating to
global citizenship
and sustainability’.
Organizational
There will be a gap mechanisms need
of quite a few years to be established to
address such questions
during which there
and develop tools for
may be no or limited measurement. Even
reporting on several as countries begin to
agree on definitions
global indicators
and methods, and
invest in monitoring
capacity, there will
be a gap of quite a few years during which there may
be no reporting on several global indicators, or limited
reporting in terms of country coverage.
There is a distinct emphasis in the SDG indicators on
outcomes – in other words, the consequences of the
experience of education on children, youth and adults.
These outcomes include minimum proficiency levels
in reading and mathematics, readiness for school and
digital literacy skills.
Another change is the clear shift to disaggregation:
analysing education participation and outcome
indicators by individual demographic and socio-economic
characteristics. The only equivalent MDG indicator was
the gender parity index in enrolment rates by level of
education. The inclusion of other characteristics, notably
location and wealth, is a consequence of increasing
availability of information sources from school and
household surveys in the last two decades, which now
permit comparison across countries.
The third change from the MDG indicators is interest
in the content of education – in particular, the
mainstreaming of education for sustainable development
and global citizenship through curricula, textbooks and
teacher preparation.
The complementary Education 2030 thematic indicators
are better aligned with the concepts in the SDG 4 targets.
However, this higher ambition has consequences.
It will require major investment of resources and
building of capacity at the national level. Many issues
The tasks for national statistical systems in the area of
education could be enormous. While some are hopeful
that a data revolution will allow poorer countries to
leapfrog costly traditional data collection mechanisms,
improved coordination and capacity-building will still
be needed. Tough decisions will have to be made to
prioritize actions and focus on what is most important.
Moreover, the proposed indicators, however ambitious,
still do not cover the full range of concepts in SDG 4
targets, as the following chapters will show.
A different concern is related to potential unintended
consequences of quantitative indicators and
international comparisons. Critics believe unchecked
use of indicators misleads by oversimplifying reality,
discouraging discussion about data quality and
distorting priorities. Much of the criticism concerns
excessive use of composite indices, which carry
particular ideas or theories about what countries should
do. The content of such indices is often not openly
debated and yet they exert undue influence on policies
(Kelley and Simmons, 2015).
Within and beyond the international education
community, the generalized use of rankings of schools,
higher education institutions and countries is often
seen as reducing education to the lowest common
denominator. Critics say rankings remove education
from its context, ignore content and do not necessarily
176
CHAPTER 9 | THE CHALLENGES OF MONITORING EDUCATION IN THE SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT GOALS