South Asian Forum for Education Development (SAFED)

Sub Themes

Elaboration of sub-themes of the conference (Inspirations from the Salzburg Global Seminar,December 6-11, 2011) Optimizing talent - closing the mobility gaps in education worldwide”

1 - Learning relevance and learning outcomes; at what cost?

Learning effectiveness measured through learner performance in public sector, independent/private and citizen led assessments may be large scale country wide, household based, hybrids (Wagner/IIEP 2010), cross-country in scale, with varying frequencies (annual, bi-annual, every three or four years etc.) across public and private schooling systems. Assessments are a mirror to society and state alike for accountability and responsibility. Learner assessments measure progress or otherwise, highlighting equity challenges with respect to, ‘specific groups within a population defined by gender, geographical location, socio-economic status, language proficiency and ethnicity’ (Sayed 2011) . In globally competitive systems, learner achievement is measured through standardized assessments as benchmarks for academic and economic mobility encouraging mushrooming of shadow schooling systems (coaching centres) for teaching to the test and what has not been learnt through regular schooling at considerable costs to households (Bray 2007, 2009, 2012; ASER 2011; Aslam & Atherton 2011). Unpacking the equity challenges further indicates problems of relevance underpinned by quality in a rapidly changing world requiring capabilities of anticipatory upgrading content and construction of active learning by multiple actors (students, teachers, parent, policy makers) (Mansilla, 2011). How can issues of learning and relevance be addressed in curriculum, language, learning materials/textbooks and teacher preparation to bridge the equity/inequality gaps? According to Bari and Sultana (ASER 2011) in divisive and highly unequal public and private systems deepened by divisions of medium of instruction, cost, syllabi and curricula, these differences manifest themselves in differentials in access, drop outs and in the quality of education which will inevitably create even bigger differences in the future. Bridging inequality requires shifting and enhancement of resources for education in a more imaginative manner. Increasingly with education being accorded as a fundamental constitutional right in South Asia, what is the evidence and commitment to quality for bridging inequality?
Kanjee A. & Y. Sayed (2011) Developing effective assessment systems for addressing equity challenges in developing countries; “Optimizing talent - closing the mobility gaps in education worldwide”, Salzburg Global Seminar December 5-11, 2012.

2 - Early beginnings for addressing the quality inequality quandary

Investment in early years from birth to eight years of age is universally seen as the most critical to last a life time (Dakar 2000, UNESCO 2007). It is a period when milestones of physical, emotional, cognitive and linguistic growth are attained concurrently at multiple levels; when children begin to profoundly acknowledge themselves as individuals but also as integral to social relationships around them (UNESCO 2007 ). Learning at this stage is acquired through multiple intelligences (Gardner 1993; 1999). In spite of such a powerful basis for early child development (ECD), many countries continue to be ambivalent about ECD /ECE as the first step to meeting EFA goals and the MDGs (GMR 2007). Early Childhood Development (ECD) is an all embracing concept, embedding, health and nutrition of mother and child, good parenting, strong social supports and simulative interaction with others outside the home from birth to eight (UNESCO, 2007). Early Childhood Education (ECE), on the other hand, is more engaged with learning in the presence or absence of parent/primary care givers. As strongly advocated by many (UNESCO 2010, Brookings 2011, ARNEC 2011) supporting ECD is imperative for girls and boys not just for stronger but more equitable foundations: “Quality early childhood development activities reduce attrition and increase primary school completion rates. These returns are often greatest for children from the most disadvantaged backgrounds”(Global Compact for Learning 2011). Investment at this stage for government and households leads to stronger possibilities for transition from one level of learning to the next perhaps with more relevance and effectiveness. Most importantly, investment in ECE and development programs holds strong opportunity to break the cycle of inequities and poverty that has plagued millions of lives in Pakistan and elsewhere (Sayeed ASER 2011). Children who have experienced good ECE programs are likely to successfully enroll and complete the primary cycle of learning. In Pakistan enrolment of rural children (3-5 years) in ECE programs is 43% (42% girls) whilst 32% of children aged 5 were not enrolled in any school facility (ASER 2011). What is the evidence from South Asia and South East Asia on ECD/ECE earmarked to address the quality inequality gaps? What needs to be done to make an irreversible case for ECD/ECE as a country priority and a fundamental right?
Early Childhood Development is also popularly known as Early Childhood Care and Education (ECCE), , Early Childhood Education and Care (ECEC), Early Childhood Care and Development (ECCD) & Early Childhood Care for Survival Growth and Development(EC‐SGD).

The Economics Case for ECD

Increasing research has revealed the importance of investment in early childhood programs and the long-term impact it can have on education and health outcomes. Indeed the earlier the investment in the child, the greater the return on that investment.
Fig 1: Investment in early childhood programs has the greatest return

Not only do studies show an improvement in cognitive and non-cognitive skills, but participation in preschools and pre-primary schools have been shown to be linked to increased school entrance and performance, and can reduce socio-economic educational disparities.
(Burnett and Jayaram, 2001)

Sources: Asian Development Bank. June 2008. Education and Skills: Strategies for Accelerated Development in Asia and the Pacific reproduced in: Burnett N. and S. Jayaram (2011): Equitable or Inequitable Finance? Optimizing talent - closing the mobility gaps in education worldwide”, Salzburg Global Seminar December 5-11, 2012.

3 - Teacher education - models that work

In spite of technologies emerging at a dizzying rate the role of the teacher remains central to the education-learning paradigm, contributing significantly to students progress. It is also true that there is a chronic persistence of the perception well into the 21st century about teaching as a last resort professional option which continues as a dominant consideration in career choices. As suggested by Dylan (2011)² it is also a ‘fact that teacher quality is highly variable; and that teacher quality has differential impact on different students’. Countries across the world continue to struggle to discover fool proof ways of teacher recruitment and the smartest teacher education models that can cultivate and nurture them as catalysts of sustained improvement in students’ learning and outcomes. To achieve the latter, teaching and leadership go hand in hand. Schools that work well ‘as not just talent refineries but talent incubators’ are inevitably institutions where teachers are supported by head teachers committed to a learning culture that leads to meaningful self-discovery and achievement in learners. In many contexts teaching and leadership initiatives may be mechanically concurrent, whilst in others they are not so evident with significant gaps and disconnects, and often disproportionate in weightage to the envisioning, academic and administrative strands. Developments with the biggest impact appear to be those that involve changes in practice, which will require new kinds of teacher learning, new models of professional development, and new models of leadership (Dylan 2011). At the Salzburg Seminar in December 2011 Dylan argued forcefully that if ‘we are serious about improving the quality of our education systems to meet the increasing demands of the world of work, then we need a culture change. No longer can we accept that once one has been teaching five or ten years, one is “good to go”. Teaching is such a complex craft that one lifetime is not enough to master it, but by rigorously focusing on their classroom practice teachers can continue to improve throughout their career. From teachers, therefore, we need a commitment—not to attending a certain number of hours of professional development per year—but a career-long commitment to the continuous improvement of classroom practice, and an agreement to develop in their practice in ways that are likely to improve outcomes for their students.

For leaders, the requirement is to create a culture for the continuous improvement of classroom practice, and to keep the focus on a small number of things that are likely to improve outcomes for students. In addition, they need to create the time within the existing teachers’ contracts to do this, and to encourage the taking of sensible risks’ . Dylan argues that Teach for America (Teach for India/ Pakistan) or Teach First are important schemes but we need louder and expanding conversations about ‘teaching is a job that smart people do to increase the attractiveness of the profession to others’. A good teacher can address inequities through high quality learning transactions. How can we nurture such policies and practices in large scale systems? Can we invest sufficiently for teacher education models both pre and in-service? What is the evidence across South Asia and East Asia?

Wiliam D (2011): How do we prepare students for a world we cannot imagine? “Optimizing talent - closing the mobility gaps in education worldwide”, Salzburg Global Seminar December6-11, 2012.

4 - Education financing for bridging the inequality gaps

Learning assessments are seen as a proxy to national economic growth patterns, the lower the achievement/learning outcomes the lower the national productivity. What is of even greater concern is that in countries, both rich and poor where there is education inequity there is bound to be pockets of unsustainable growth and dissonance with high social and private costs.
Current trends in global financing of education reveal gaps between what is actually needed and what is available. According to the UNESCO EFA Global Monitoring Report (2008) total global spending on education is around $2.5 trillion a year, with about $2.0 trillion coming from public expenditure, about $500 billion from private sources and only about $12 billion from aid. Despite this, the global financing gap for basic education in low income countries is around $23 billion. Public spending on education in developing countries is skewed towards the top quintile, with disparities greatest in low-income countries where the share of the bottom 20% is only half that of the top 20% (Burnett & Jayaram 2011) .

Resource availability is vital for expansion of access and improvement in quality of education. The education sector in Pakistan has been facing acute shortage of resources. On average, not more than 2% of GDP is allocated to the education sector, and 90% of this amount is expended on recurring costs/salaries, whilst only 10% of the budget is available for development purposes. Persistently low investment has resulted in slowing down of growth in educational opportunities for Pakistan. India, Pakistan and Bangladesh are three of the nine high population countries of the world. The disparity in need and the actual intake capacity has led to a backlog of illiterate, low learning outcomes and 20 million out of school children (5-16 years)

There is an urgency to rethink education financing to address the challenges of Right to Education (RTE), MDGs and EFA goals. Innovative approaches need to be designed to generate additional resources for early childhood education, schooling and second chance education programs.

Lately, new partners have emerged on the block for support to education development such as Russia, China, Qatar including private foundations, Hewlett Foundation, Dubai Cares and also the corporate sector through aggressive CSR programs (Burnett and Jayaram 2011; SAFED/UNGEI 2011) . These new partners/donors are seeking creative synergies for effective programs in the public sector as well as pooling resources with traditional donors, new private/corporate sector and civil society partners. The emergent trends require flexible approaches in public sector protocols for creating an enabling environment to welcome new partners with non-traditional approaches to address the resource crunch and bridging the quality inequality gaps exacerbated by gender, geography and class.

Innovative financing has been demonstrated ably by India through the Prarambik Shiksha Kosh (PSK) since 2005/6 and diaspora bonds since 1991. Under its common minimum program, India has introduced an education cess which is a 2% surcharge on the total payable tax. The entire amount raised goes towards funding of the Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan (SSA) the national EFA initiative and particularly the Mid Day Meal scheme (UNGEI/SAFED 2011). Countries such as Pakistan and Maldives are also exploring possibilities to revive programs such as the Iqra Surcharge and the Taleemi or Trust Fund. Will these programs be enough to meet the requirements of RTE and EFA? Will innovative financing substitute mainstream sources of funding? How will resources for education take priority over other competing agendas? How long can our children wait?

Burnett N. and S. Jayaram (2011): Equitable or Inequitable Finance? Optimizing talent - closing the mobility gaps in education worldwide”, Salzburg Global Seminar December 5-11, 2012.

SAFED/UNGEI (2011) Partnerships for Equity In South Asia- Prospects and Challenges