Mostrando entradas con la etiqueta EFA. Mostrar todas las entradas
Mostrando entradas con la etiqueta EFA. Mostrar todas las entradas

What Happened at the World Education Forum in Dakar (2000)?


Rosa María Torres


In 1990, at the World Conference on Education for All, six education goals were adopted, dealing with children, youth and adults, in and out of school.

In 2000, at the World Education Forum held in Dakar-Senegal, the evaluation of the 1990-2000 EFA decade was presented. The goals had not been met. The deadline was postponed until the year 2015.

In 2015, once again, the goals were not met. Another World Education Forum took place, this time in Incheon-Republic of Korea (18-21 May 2015), to adopt a post-2015 global education agenda. The deadline is 2030. The goal is broader and more ambitious: "Equitable and inclusive quality education and lifelong learning for all by 2030."

Now that a new global goals have been adopted for 2015-2030, with old goals still pending, it is useful to revisit what happened at the Dakar Forum in 2000.

I published the text below in Adult Education and Development No. 56, DVV, Bonn, 2001. 


What Happened at the World Education Forum in Dakar?

Little information circulated in public before and after the World Education Forum, held in Dakar, Senegal from 26 to 28 April 2000. In the days following the conference there were a few newspaper reports, especially in those countries that sent journalists to cover the event. However, in many cases one wondered at the costs and benefits of a week-long trip to Africa at the end of which what was written was descriptions, personal stories and travelogues, rather than substantive, analytical accounts of the complex world of education and of the myriad relationships, positions, power conflicts, interests and games that are usually at stake in this type of events.

The purpose of the Forum was to present the global results of the evaluation of the Decade of “Education for All” (EFA) launched at the World Conference on Education for All held in Jomtien, Thailand, in March 1990, and to adopt a new Framework for Action in order to continue the task. As was already evident half way through the decade, the six EFA goals set in Jomtien for the year 2000 had not been met. Thus, the Framework for Action adopted in Dakar basically “reaffirmed” the vision of the goals laid down in Jomtien, and extended them for another 15 years, until 2015. Why 15? There was apparently no rational calculation or scientific answer.

The event was organized by the International Consultative Forum on Education for All (the EFA Forum), a body created in 1991 to monitor EFA and composed of representatives of the five international agencies that sponsored the EFA initiative – UNESCO, UNICEF, UNDP, UNFPA and the World Bank – and of bilateral cooperation agencies, governments and NGOs, as well as some education specialists.

The Forum was attended by over a thousand people, representing governments, the civil society and international agencies. One salient feature (which was noted with displeasure by several national delegations) was the overbearing presence of functionaries from international agencies at the conference as a whole and on the various panels and committees, especially the two most important and most coveted: the Drafting Committee and the “Futures Group”. The latter was charged with suggesting mechanisms for following up the commitments made at the Forum up until 2015.

Since the Forum was held in Africa, there was a significant presence of participants from Africa and, to a lesser extent, from Asia. The Latin American presence was weak and hampered by the fact that translation into Spanish was available only in plenary sessions. The differences between national delegations were also striking: large delegations, and one-person delegations; delegations headed by Ministers or high-ranking officials, and those made up of junior officials; delegations that were exclusively governmental, and those in which the government had had the good sense to involve academics, members of NGOs, experts and even trade unionists.

The Forum lasted three days. The programme was organized in plenary sessions (“broad policy issues”) and strategy sessions (“key operational issues”) linked with the theme of each plenary. Since the programme of an event says much about its nature and intentions (the selection, organization and prioritization of its contents, and the proposed methodology), a list of the themes covered in the various sessions is included in Box A. The Forum concluded with a final plenary session that included the adoption of commitments and the “Voices from the Grassroots”: statements by teachers and learners from Africa, the Arab States, Europe and Latin America.
Box A: Programme: Themes addressed
Plenary sessions
I. Improving the quality and equity of education for all
II. Making effective use of resources for education
III. Cooperating with civil society to achieve social goals through education
IV. Promoting education for democracy and citizenship
V. Fulfilling our shared commitment to Education for All
VI. The new partnership for EFA

Sub-Plenaries (within the Strategy Sessions)

» Technology for basic education: a luxury or a necessity?
» Overcoming obstacles to educating girls
» Overcoming the effects of HIV/AIDS on basic education
» Fighting poverty and marginalization through basic education
Strategy Sessions

» Meeting special and diverse education needs: making inclusive education a reality

» Universalizing free and compulsory primary education

» Expanding access to early childhood development programmes

» Designing basic education content to meet the needs and values of society

» Assessing learning achievement

» Enabling teachers to enable learners

» Utilizing debt relief for education

» Working with the business community to strengthen basic education

» Strategic choices in development and use of teaching and learning resources

» Providing basic education in situations of emergency and crisis

» Monitoring the provision and outcomes of basic education

» Mobilizing new resources for basic education

» Building effective partnerships with funding agencies

» Promoting population and reproductive health, especially among young people, through basic education

» Building social integration through bilingual and mother tongue education

» A FRESH start to school health: improving learning and educational outcomes by improving health, hygiene and nutrition

» Promoting basic education and democracy: the role of the media

» Including the excluded: enhancing educational access and quality

» Literacy for all: a renewed vision for a ten-year global action plan

» After primary education, what?

It should be explained that during the week, Dakar was host not to one but to two international events concerned with EFA: the World Education Forum, that is to say, the “governmental”, “official” event, and the International Consultation of NGOs (24-25 April), the “alternative” event held immediately before. The NGO event was organized by the “Collective Consultation of NGOs on Literacy and Education for All”2 and the NGO-UNESCO Liaison Committee. OXFAM and Action Aid, two international NGOs participating in this Collective Consultation, launched in 1999 by the Global Campaign for Education, later joined by Education International (EI), the international confederation of teachers’ organizations. This campaign, which is critical of the work done by the EFA movement over the 90s, put forward its own Global Action Plan to achieve EFA. Some of those who took part in the NGO event also participated in the official conference, a number of them fulfilling important functions at it.

An Event Without Expectations

Not much happened at Dakar. It was a huge and costly meeting without sparkle and without expectations, with complicated logistics, with few surprises and with anticipated outcomes, as is usual at events that are concerned essentially with discussing and approving documents that have been prepared in advance and have already been through various drafts. What is left open for discussion is form rather than content: replacing, deleting or adding words, moving paragraphs, or highlighting one particular idea among the whole. Frequently, battles and victories revolve around “including” sentences or paragraphs that each person or group considers relevant from their own point of view or field of interest: education for girls, protecting the environment, debt cancellation, early childhood development, street children, eradication of child work, the gender perspective, HIV/AIDS prevention, indigenous groups, South-South cooperation, teacher development, community involvement, the fight against poverty, and so on. This results in documents that are cover-alls, including everyone but neither representing nor satisfying anyone in particular. That is how international documents and declarations are drawn up and how they end up talking about generalities, coming back to commonplaces, enshrining vagueness and ambiguity, and creating the illusion of shared ideals, consensus and commitment.

It was, as has been said, an event without big surprises. The broad results of the EFA end-of-decade global assessment were known prior to Dakar (see a brief summary in Boxes B and C). The assessment process began in mid-1998, with national reports drawn up by governments in each country (on the basis of 18 indicators proposed by the EFA Forum), which were then incorporated into regional reports presented and discussed at regional meetings.3 There was also a special meeting held in Recife, Brazil, in February 2000 to evaluate the “Nine Most Populous Countries Initiative” E-9 (Bangladesh, Brazil, China, Egypt, India, Indonesia, Mexico, Nigeria and Pakistan), a sub-programme launched in 1993 by the same international agencies within the framework of EFA.

Information about the assessment process was provided step by step by the various publications and web pages of the EFA Forum, UNESCO and the other EFA partners. National and regional reports on the end of the decade were released on the web. Thus, even though the national reports were generally drawn up in government offices by small groups of technicians and consultants working against the clock and with no or very little social participation or consultation, any educated person with access to the Internet could be informed before the Dakar Forum that the Jomtien goals had not been met, and could read such reports on the web.

Box B: 1990–2000: Some Comparative Data


1990 (Jomtien) 2000 (Dakar)




Expenditure per pupil as a percentage of Gross National Product (GNP) per capita
Between 6%  and 19% Between 8% and 20% (1998)
Children in early childhood development and education programmes (0 to 6 years) 99 million 104 million (out of a total of over 800 million)
Children in school 599 million 681 million (44 million of this increase being girls)
Children with no access to school 106 million 117 million (60% girls)
Illiterate adults 895 million 880 million (60% women)
Adult literacy rate 75% 80% (85% men, 74% women)

Sources:
* WCEFA (Inter-Agency Commission World Conference on Education for All), Final Report, World Conference on Education for All (Jomtien, Thailand, 5-9 March 1990), New York: UNICEF, 1990.
*
EFA FORUM, Statistical Document, World Education Forum (Dakar, 26-28 April 2000), Paris: UNESCO, 2000.  


The proposal to extend the period until 2015 had already been put forward in the EFA bulletins prior to Dakar. The six goals adopted in Dakar are essentially a ratification of those agreed in Jomtien, although there are some changes in content and form that are worth noting (see Box D): this time, education is acknowledged as a right4 and it is specifically stated that primary schooling should be free, compulsory and of good quality; there is a reminder that the outcomes of education should be visible and measurable; greater emphasis is placed on the elimination of gender inequality in both primary and secondary education, with particular reference to girls;5 and there is a request that adult education should be fully integrated into national education systems and policies.

Box C: Some Data From the EFA 2000 Global Assessment
  • In around 60 countries which carried out learning assessment operations, only 5% of primary pupils attained or surpassed the minimum level of learning.
  • The figures for repetition remained extremely high.
  • One of the causes of the low quality of education were teachers' low salaries and poor training.
  • Worldwide, 63% of the cost of education was covered by governments, 35% by the private sector (including parents) and 2% by external cooperation.
  • Half of the developing countries which supplied information reported spending less than 1.7% of their GNP on basic education in 1998.
Sources:
  • EFA FORUM, Statistical Document, World Education Forum (Dakar, 26-28 April 2000), Paris: UNESCO, 2000.
  • Countdown, N° 21, UNESCO, Paris (June-August 2000).
It should not be forgotten that we arrived at Dakar with a considerable reduction in the “expanded vision” of basic education adopted in Jomtien, where EFA was meant to satisfy the basic learning needs of all – children, young people and adults – throughout life, within and outside the formal school system. Nonetheless, over the course of the decade, this “all” visibly shrank, as did the contexts and levels of satisfaction of such basic learning needs.6 The “focus on poverty” (i.e. not on the poor but on the poorest of the poor, since the poor are in the majority and their number is growing worldwide), combined with the focus on childhood and, within this, on girls, may mean now that Education for All gets further reduced to Education for [the Poorest] Girls. Also, while the notion of basic education in Jomtien had the potential to include secondary education (Goal 2: “universal access to primary education or whatever higher level of education is considered basic”), in Dakar the upper limit is clearly primary schooling, even though the issue of gender equality extends to secondary education.

Box D: Jomtien and Dakar: The Goals
1990–2000: Jomtien 2000–2015: Dakar

1. Expansion of early childhood care and development activities, including family and community
interventions, especially for poor, disadvantaged and disabled children.
1. Expanding and improving comprehensive early childhood care and education, especially for the most vulnerable and disadvantaged children.







2. Universal access to, and completion of, primary
education (or whatever higher level of education is considered “basic”) by the year 2000.

2. Ensuring that by 2015 all children, particularly girls, children in difficult circumstances and those belonging to ethnic minorities, have access to and complete free and compulsory primary education of good quality.

3. Improvement in learning achievement such that an
agreed percentage of an appropriate age cohort
(e.g. 80% of 14 year-olds) attains or surpasses a defined level of necessary learning achievement.

3. Ensuring that the learning needs of all young people and adults are met through equitable access to appropriate learning and life skills programmes.
4. Reduction in the adult illiteracy rate (the appropriate age cohort to be determined in each country) to, say, one-half its 1990 level by the year 2000, with sufficient emphasis on female literacy to significantly reduce the current disparity between the male and female illiteracy rates.

4. Achieving a 50 per cent improvement in levels of adult literacy by 2015, especially for women, and equitable access to basic and continuing education for all adults.
5. Expansion of provision of basic education and
training in other essential skills required by youth and adults, with programme effectiveness assessed in terms
of behavioural changes and impacts on health, employment and productivity.

5. Eliminating gender disparities in primary and secondary education by 2015, with a focus on ensuring girls’ full and equal access to and achievement in basic education of good quality.
6. Increased acquisition by individuals and families
of the knowledge, skills and values required for
better living and sound and sustainable
development, made available through all
educational channels including the mass media,
other forms of modern and traditional communication, and social action, with
effectiveness assessed in terms of behavioural change.
6. Improving all aspects of the quality of education and ensuring excellence for all so that recognized and measurable learning outcomes are achieved by all, especially in literacy, numeracy and essential life skills.


An Accolade from Governments for UNESCO – for a New UNESCO

Perhaps the greatest surprise, the tensest moment and the source of most contention at the conference, was countries’ reaction to the proposal put forward by the Futures Group for the monitoring of implementation of this second stage of EFA (2000-2015). The proposal entrusted global coordination of follow-up to a special body to be set up by the international agencies that sponsored EFA, and by representatives of governments and the civil society. The who and the how of this follow-up had been the subject of critical discussions among the international agencies in the lead-up to Dakar, and one of the topics entrusted to the Futures Group during the Forum. The mechanism proposed was expressly designed to avoid UNESCO’s taking on the global coordination of Dakar+15. “Part of the criticism is that UNESCO has not given enough importance to Education for All”, said John Longmore, a United Nations official and coordinator of the Futures Group, the day before.7

However, a number of speakers from government delegations, from Latin America and the Caribbean, Africa and Asia, rejected the proposed mechanism in firm and even heated terms, and requested that the leadership of EFA should be taken by UNESCO as the specialized educational organization within the United Nations system. The speakers were equally emphatic in agreeing that the task should be entrusted not to the present UNESCO but to a restructured UNESCO.

This development took everyone by surprise, including UNESCO itself, both honoured and worried by the responsibility and the implications of the task. The Futures Group had to reconvene in an additional unplanned emergency session to amend the original proposal.8 At the final plenary, the Director of UNESCO, Koichiro Matsuura, made a commitment to such a restructuring. This means, of course, an urgent major reform on which depends not only the chance to give new impetus to the renewed worldwide commitment to EFA but also the very survival of the organization.9


From Jomtien to Dakar: Inevitable Contrasts

There were huge differences between the Jomtien and Dakar conferences, not merely because of the ten years of dramatic and turbulent changes in the world that lay between them, but also because of the spirit surrounding each of them. For those of us who were in Dakar and had also been in Jomtien ten years earlier, where what was being evaluated in Dakar began, the differences were enormous, and obvious.

Jomtien succeeded in creating a spirit of a fresh start, of hope, of “this time it’ll work”. In Dakar, both agencies and national delegations inevitably arrived with a feeling of failure, of a task half done. In Jomtien, anything seemed possible, the future looked promising, quality and equity were somewhat new words, and made for credible goals.

Ten years on, there has been an unprecedented growth in poverty throughout the world, in exclusion, unemployment, hunger, despair and AIDS. Quality and equity are now worn-out words, with little relation to reality. In 1990, technology seemed to be the magic wand that would scatter its gifts, ushering in longed-for educational innovations, mass access and enjoyable, rapid learning for children, young people and adults.

At the start of this century, the potential and promises of developments in information and communication technologies leave us speechless; at the same time, the “digital divide” is a new phenomenon and a new term already incorporated in educational jargon – one more problem and one more division between rich and poor, between the included and the excluded. Jomtien was an invitation to create, to invent and to dream. Dakar, faced with the crass contrast between rhetoric and reality, between documents and facts, between goals and achievements, restrained the imagination, encouraged excuses and self-justification, and provided a temptation to inflate numbers and to blur realities.

The international agencies that organized the 1990 conference arrived in Jomtien disposed to try to strengthen the inter-agency collaboration to which they were committed, in the knowledge that this was a requirement if they were to set the necessary example of leadership of a world initiative that proclaimed cooperation, partnership, multisectoral policies and efficient use of resources. These same agencies, ten years later, experienced the real difficulties of such collaboration, withdrew into their own “niches” and institutional styles, and developed the well-known “donor fatigue” syndrome. The differences and disputes between them, which were already present in 1990, have not diminished but have rather worsened over the decade.

Perhaps the most unfortunate aspect of Dakar was the infighting between agencies, particularly between UNESCO and UNICEF, sister agencies in the United Nations system and today in open competition for hegemony over the world panorama of education, and specifically over EFA. Each is dismissive of the other’s technical quality. UNESCO resents the fact that the United Nations gave UNICEF world leadership over education for girls, while UNICEF resents that UNESCO was ratified by national governments as the lead agency for Education for All. The only organization that appears not to have problems with its identity and hegemony is the World Bank, which has its own agenda and huge financial and political resources with which to pursue it, and which, in the technical vacuum effectively created in the field of education on a global scale, has succeeded in imposing a new type of technical “expertise” and legitimacy in the field.

National delegations arrived in Dakar without much security or conviction. Even though those heading governments and education ministries were not the same people as in 1990, today’s officials knew that they had to accept liability for the success or failure of their predecessors and to present a decent image of their countries. In many cases, however, the reality and the statistics gave them no help. At the end of the decade, several countries had no information available with which to respond to some of the 18 indicators laid down. Few had data on learning achievement; in some cases, the data were there but progress had not been made in the very field which was defined as crucial in Jomtien: learning.

Many countries admitted in their reports that they had ignored adult and non-formal education, while regarding Education for All as Primary Education for All, and, even worse, as access to primary education, with little attention to retention, completion and effective learning. For all the juggling with words and figures, governments know that they are subject today to the watchful eye of civil society, of researchers and specialists who may want to scrutinize the truthfulness of figures and statements. While ten years ago, government reports were confidential documents locked away in the archives of education ministries, today they are exposed to generalized demands for information, transparency and accountability.

Academic institutions and non-governmental organizations have no reason either to feel satisfied with their participation in EFA. NGOs became increasingly involved and concerned in the progress of EFA as a macro policy and programme at national and international level, over the final few years when EFA was being assessed and the decade was drawing to a close. The Global Campaign for Education, critical of and alternative to the “official” EFA movement, was set up at the instigation of international NGOs from the North rather than as an endogenous movement founded by NGOs from countries in the South. The loss of a critical attitude among NGOs – and of progressive intellectuals as a whole – is a well-known phenomenon of the era.

Heavy reliance on international and national funding, and their growing role as consultants, service providers and implementers of government social policies and compensatory programmes, have placed NGOs in a difficult position as the “ham in the sandwich”, causing them to lose much of their autonomy and to become reactive rather than proactive. Furthermore, activism and focus on local concerns and projects have meant that many national NGOs have remained on the fringes of the national and international issues and forums that decide on the policies and guidelines that eventually govern their own activities at local community level.

Between Jomtien and Dakar, not only were goals not fully met, but the original ideas of EFA also stood still. Despite the weaknesses to be found in the Jomtien documents, they had the potential and power to inspire a renewal of education at many levels and in many ways. The “broad vision” of basic education espoused in Jomtien remains indeed as a current challenge, to be developed in theory and delivered in practice in the coming years. One decade on, Dakar did not pretend to elaborate or offer anything new: it presented itself as a Jomtien+10, that is, as a staging post between the evaluation of a decade of EFA and its extension for another 15 years.

The 1990s initiated a new historical era10 and the world changed fundamentally over the decade, but this is not reflected in the Dakar documents. The “poverty alleviation” discourse continues to be repeated over and over again, while in this very decade we reached a point where we need to ask ourselves whether the problem is to improve education in order to alleviate poverty or rather to alleviate poverty in order to improve education and, moreover, to make education and learning possible. Trust is still placed in economic growth as the solution to social inequity, while what was reaffirmed in the 1990s is that growth is not enough, that the distribution of income remains unchanged and wealth is becoming ever more concentrated in a few hands.

The reiteration of Jomtien´s vision and goals, and the postponement of the target date, assume that failure and potential success can be explained in terms of a linear axis between more and less, that what is needed is not to rethink the diagnosis, objectives and strategies, but more of the same: more time (15 more years), more money (new loans and donations, and better use of existing resources), more commitment, and more action.11 Once again, no consideration or criticism of the major changes that need to be introduced at local, national and global level to the ways of thinking about and confronting education policy, educational reform and international cooperation in this field.

Where is the new theoretical and practical knowledge about education that was acquired in the course of the decade? What was learnt at global, regional, national and local level, from the attempt to translate the ideas of EFA into policies, programmes, projects and action plans? What should have been done differently, at all levels? Neither the national and regional reports, nor the global EFA report, contain substantial answers to these questions. In fact, the global end-of-decade assessment was largely quantitative (the 18 indicators) and unilateral (international agencies requesting evaluation by governments without evaluating their own performance).

In comparison with 1990, there are now more refined statistics, which allow the magnitude of the problems to be better understood, but neither the Declaration nor the Framework for Action suggests that ten years of practical application of EFA have led to any better understanding of the nature of these problems or of suitable ways of dealing with them. The only international EFA partner that worked out and published its “lessons learnt” during the decade was the World Bank. Such lessons, however, show the Bank as a slow learner, only just grasping what has been known in theory and through painful practical experience – often assisted by the same World Bank and by other donors – in most poor countries in the South for many years.12
 
Perhaps the greatest difference between Jomtien and Dakar was the deep erosion of the collective confidence and credence placed in the usefulness and effectiveness of international conferences, agreements and commitments. The continued postponement of deadlines for the same repeated objectives and goals has made them seem commonplaces – eradication of illiteracy, universal primary education, free and compulsory education, basic education, leading role of teachers, quality improvement, gender equality, alleviation of poverty – towards which there is little progress, at least as measured by the conventional indicators and mechanisms with which education continues to be evaluated.

What Next?

It has repeatedly been said of EFA that it began and remained an eminently “donor-driven” initiative. One of the key “lessons learnt” by international EFA partners during the 1990s is that the mechanisms for implementing and monitoring EFA were not sufficiently clearly defined in Jomtien, and that implementation and monitoring were not based at the country level. This time, the Framework for Action agreed in Dakar defines better the roles and mechanisms at the various levels, and reaffirms that “the heart” of the action must lie at the national level. However, it was clear from the Dakar Forum itself that it will take a great effort for the international organizations to go beyond rhetoric and good intentions, to give up their roles as protagonists and to abide by the lessons that they themselves have learnt.

In the new Framework for Action adopted, countries undertake by 2002 to draw up, or revise, National Plans for EFA to meet the six goals agreed. As in Jomtien, but more explicitly, there is an emphasis on the need for participatory mechanisms and processes within each country in order to design, implement and monitor these National Plans.
“The heart of EFA activity lies at the country level. National EFA Forums will be strengthened or established to support the achievement of EFA. All relevant ministries and national civil society organizations will be systematically represented in these Forums. They should be transparent and democratic and should constitute a framework for implementation at sub-national levels.”13
National delegations left Dakar with the task of organizing, in the immediate future, National EFA Forums and drawing up – in a participatory manner – National EFA Plans by 2002. The lack of conviction and enthusiasm with which many of those present took on this task may be well understood. It is to be expected that some will not see the sense of the exercise and will go about it like schoolchildren passing on the task to their fathers or mothers (that is, engaging consultants to produce a document) or will do it simply in order to please teacher. It is even to be expected that some will not carry out the task at all.14
 
In this respect, it is necessary to keep in mind that the Dakar Forum – and the Jomtien Conference, in its day – may have marked a BEFORE and AFTER for international agencies, but not necessarily for countries.

Firstly, countries move in real time and real situations. Governments, unlike international agencies, are elected by popular votes and are turned out if they fail to fulfil people’s expectations. They are guided by time frames that do not coincide with the time frames and rhythms laid down and agreed, homogeneously, at the international level. Government signatories to the Dakar Declaration, like those who signed the Jomtien Declaration ten years earlier, belong to governments which may be outgoing, incoming or part way through their terms of office. Between 2000 and 2015, countries will experience at least three or four changes of government. And we know what that usually means. “Education as an affair of state rather than of government” remains more a catchphrase than a reality in most countries.

Secondly, literacy, universal primary education, quality, efficiency, equity and gender equality in education are national and international goals which in many cases go back to the 1950s and ‘60s. In the 1990s, the vast majority of countries developed education plans and reforms to promote basic education in line with the goals set at Jomtien. Dakar essentially means updating or reorienting these plans, and giving them an extra 15 years.

One lesson which should have been firmly learnt in the 1990s is that educational reform is not a technocratic top-down enterprise, either at the international or at the national level. Developing and changing education and education systems require the understanding, commitment and active participation of those directly involved and of the population at large: teachers, parents, learners, the academic community, NGOs, private enterprise and the churches. No international agency or declaration can ensure that real governments and citizens will develop the will, or that plans will be carried through. This is an internal matter for each country, a political and sovereign fight in the collective effort to build a democratic state and an informed citizenry able to participate, to be watchful, to demand and to contribute at the same time.

Education for All 1990-2000 was essentially a top-down movement planned, conducted and evaluated by international and national political and technocratic elites, with scant information or encouragement to participate given to citizens, even to teachers and education researchers and specialists. National EFA plans were usually government plans, drawn up and discussed behind closed doors by national and international functionaries. The global, regional and national meetings to monitor EFA were meetings attended by a few familiar faces. Few people knew about the work done by the EFA Forum – the international body monitoring EFA, the secretariat of which was located in the offices of UNESCO, in Paris – or about the composition of its Steering Committee, its meetings and decisions.15 The end-of-decade EFA assessment was, for many people, a reminder that there was something called Education for All, which was being evaluated by others and which was already coming to a close.

The next 15 years must not be a repeat of this story. It is not possible to separate thought (top) from action (bottom), either in the relationship between international agencies and national governments or in that between national/local governments and national/local societies. Accepting this distinction means accepting that there are some who plan and others who are restricted to implementation, that the investigation and analysis are already done and that all that is left is converting them into Action Plans. Doing things well means thinking and acting at all levels. Discussing the diagnosis and the strategies adopted at a macro level, and making suggestions as to the “what” and “how” for each specific context, are tasks for the National EFA Forums and for civil society as a whole.

This time it should not be possible to arrive at the year 2015 and complain about lack of achievement. Participation is built in as a prerequisite and as a channel open to all, and for that to take place information and evaluation will have to be transparent, flowing in both directions between the local and the global. In 1990, information and communication were undertakings requiring considerable time and money, tons of paper, distribution of materials, organization of meetings, travel and delays; today we can also use electronic mail and the Internet. No one should arrive at 2015 and unload on to others responsibility for what has not been done, done badly or only half done. It is the responsibility of ALL – the national and the international community, from the local to the global – to ensure that Education for All becomes a reality.

Fifteen years seem a long time, but ten also seemed a long time when governments and the international community made a commitment in Jomtien to attain six goals by the year 2000. Just as happened with the Jomtien Declaration and Framework for Action, it will soon be “realized” that the goals set in Dakar are too ambitious for the resources and time available. Hence the need for realistic and flexible national plans that are constantly revised and updated, in which governments and national societies examine their capabilities and jointly draw up, and make a commitment to achieving, plans for EFA, setting goals and intermediate deadlines which can serve as plausible objectives and achievements that help smooth the way. An action plan is more than an expression of intent, a list of objectives and goals to which indicators of success and statistics of achievement are tacked on: it implies establishing – and creating on the move – the conditions and requirements, strategies, methods, partnerships, and human and financial resources needed to reach those objectives and goals. In the field of education there is no longer space for rhetoric, for goals without strategies or budgets, or for unreal and non-committal declarations.

There is no worse plan than one that cannot be implemented. There is no worse commitment than one which cannot be achieved. This time we have to be serious. The year 2015 must not be a Jomtien+10+15, to which more and more extra time is given. Because there will simply be no more time. In the next 15 years we have the chance to raise education from its present state, or to let it collapse finally.

Notes

2 This is a UNESCO-NGO co-operative programme. It was initiated by UNESCO in 1984 as a Collective Consultation of NGOs on Literacy. Later, in the context of the Jomtien Conference, its name and scope were changed to Collective Consultation of NGOs on Literacy and Education for All. Around 100 NGOs –mostly international NGOs- have been involved in this programme over the past few years.

3 The regional meetings were:
Sub-Saharan Africa: Johannesburg, South Africa, 6–10 December 1999
Asia and the Pacific: Bangkok, Thailand, 17–20 January 2000
Arab States: Cairo, Egypt, 24–27 January 2000
Europe and North America: Warsaw, Poland, 6–8 February 2000
Latin America and the Caribbean: Santo Domingo, Dominican Republic, 10–12 February 2000

4 The Jomtien documents avoided talking of education as a right. The formula adopted was ‘taking advantage of opportunities’: “Every person – child, youth and adult – shall be able to benefit from educational opportunities designed to meet their basic learning needs».

5 During the Forum, Kofi Annan, Secretary General of the United Nations, officially launched an Initiative for Girls’ Education, within the framework of EFA and under the leadership of UNICEF.

6 See: R.M.Torres, 2000. One Decade of Education for All: The Challenge Ahead [Una década de Educación para Todos: La tarea pendiente], FUM-TEP, Montevideo; Editorial Popular, Madrid; Editorial Laboratorio Educativo, Caracas; IIPE UNESCO, Buenos Aires; Artmed Editora, Porto Alegre.

7 In: Education Forum, Newsletter of the World Education Forum, N° 3, Dakar, 28 April 2000, p. 1.

8 A duplicated sheet circulated by the Futures Group on the last day of the Forum explains: “Explanatory note: After a first draft of the Futures Group was orally presented to the plenary on Thursday, a late evening meeting was convened of all group members who could be traced (50% of the original group) to develop this second draft in response to the comments from the Ministers”.

9 The United States might rejoin UNESCO, according to statements made by Gene Sperling, Clinton’s economic adviser, at a press conference at the end of the Forum.

10 See: Eric Hobsbawn, The Age of Extremes: A History of the World 1914-1991, New York, Pantheon Books, 1994.

11 Throughout the Forum the need for less rhetoric and more action was stressed. “As we look forward, we want to put emphasis on action. We do not need any more global talk shops. We need action on the ground — country by country by country,” the Canadian Minister of International Cooperation, Maria Minna, stated at the final plenary by way of conclusion. She was reading her report on behalf of the following bilateral donors: Canada, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland, the United Kingdom and the United States.

12 The eight “lessons learnt” by the World Bank in the 1990s in the context of Education for All are as follows: 1. Strong political commitment is the cornerstone of success; 2. Quality is as important as quantity; 3. Governments cannot deliver on EFA alone, partnerships are key; 4. Countries make better progress when they have developed sector policy frameworks; 5. Inefficient utilization of education resources constrains progress; 6. Education must adapt quickly to new economic, technological and social challenges; 7. Education must be cushioned during crises; 8. Educational expansion needs to be supported by a growing economy». In: World Bank, Education for All: From Jomtien to Dakar and Beyond. Paper prepared by the World Bank for the World Education Forum in Dakar, Senegal (April 26-28, 2000). Washington, D.C., 2000.

13 In: The Dakar Framework for Action, Education for All: Meeting our Collective Commitments, final draft, Dakar, 28 April 2000.

14 National Action Plans were often abused in the 1990s. There were governments which prepared two, three or more in the course of the decade due to changes of administration or in response to the demands of different international agencies.

15 There is an evaluation of the EFA Forum, commissioned by the EFA Forum at the end of 1999 as part of the global EFA 2000 assessment (see: A. Little and E. Miller, The International Consultative Forum on Education for All 1990-2000: An Evaluation. A Report to the EFA Forum Steering Committee, Paris, UNESCO, EFA Forum Secretariat, 2000).

Education for All 2000-2015 - How did Latin America and the Caribbean do?


Education for All Monitoring Report site

(ver español más abajo)
UNESCO's Education for All (EFA) Global Monitoring Report 2000-2015 was released on April 9, 2015. Over these 15 years, only one third of countries worldwide met the four EFA goals considered measurable (goals 1, 2, 4 and 5), half of them achieved universal access to, and completion of, primary education (goal 2), and 25% of them reduced adult literacy rates by 50% (goal 4).

Latin America and the Caribbean did not do too well. Most salient (although uneven) advances: gender parity in primary and secondary education (goal 5), and expansion of pre-school education (part of goal 1). Cuba is the only country in the region that achieved the four goals.

We present below the table with the regional overview included in the EFA report. It refers to the four indicators considered in the EFA evaluation: (a) enrolment in pre-primary education, (b) enrolment in primary education (completion not included), (c) adult illiteracy, and (d) gender parity in primary and secondary education. Out of EFA's six goals, four were included in the Education for All Development Index (EDI). Goal 3 (basic learning needs of youth and adults) and Goal 6 (quality of education) were not included. The table presents prospects for 2015 for the EDI-related goals and indicators.

The full report in English can be downloaded here. A summary of the report, here. A comprehensive regional overview, here. Press release, here.


El Informe Global de Monitoreo de la Educación para Todos (EPT) 2000-2015 fue dado a conocer por la UNESCO el 9 abril de 2015. En estos 15 años, solo un tercio de los países del mundo logró cumplir las cuatro metas de la EPT consideradas "mensurables" (metas 1, 2, 4 y 5), la mitad logró universalizar la matrícula y la terminación de la educación primaria (meta 2), y una cuarta parte redujo a la mitad la tasa de analfabetismo adulto (meta 4).

América Latina y el Caribe no tuvo un buen desempeño. Los avances más notorios, aunque desiguales: equidad de género en primaria y secundaria (meta 5), y expansión de la educación pre-escolar (parte de la meta 1).
Cuba es el único país en la región que logró cumplir las cuatro metas.
Abajo la tabla con el resumen regional incluida en el informe (en inglés, traduzco títulos y subtítulos al español), la cual se refiere a los cuatro indicadores considerados en la evaluación de la EPT: (a) matrícula en educación pre-escolar, (b) matrícula en educación primaria (no se incluye completación), (c) analfabetismo adulto, y (d) equidad de género en educación primaria y secundaria. De las seis metas de la EPT, cuatro se integraron al Indice de Desarrollo de la Educación para Todos (IDE). La Meta 3 (necesidades de aprendizaje de jóvenes y adultos) y la Meta 6 (calidad de la educación) no se incorporaron al IDE, al considerarse que no eran medibles. En la tabla se presentan las perspectivas al 2015 para las cuatro metas e indicadores incluidos en el IDE.

El informe completo, en español, puede descargarse aquí. Un resumen del informe, en español, aquí. El resumen de la situación regional, en inglés, aquí. Un resumen en español de los principales resultados del informe, aquí. Comunicado de prensa del lanzamiento, aquí.
REGIONAL OVERVIEW
LATIN AMERICA AND THE CARIBBEAN
EDUCATION FOR ALL GLOBAL MONITORING REPORT 2015


Table 1: Education for All development index (EDI) and prospects for Education for All
goals 1, 2, 4 and 5
Tabla 1: Indice de Desarrollo de la Educación para Todos (EDI) y perspectivas para las metas 1, 2, 4 y 5 de la Educación para Todos

MEAN DISTANCE TO EDUCATION FOR ALL (EFA)
OVERALL ACHIEVEMENT AS MEASURED BY THE EDUCATION FOR ALL DEVELOPMENT INDEX (EDI), 2012

Overall EFA achieved
  Logro de la EPT (EDI) between 0.97 and 1.00) | (1): Cuba

Close to overall EFA  Cerca del logro de la EPT (EDI between 0.95 and 0.96) | (7): Aruba, Bahamas, Chile, Ecuador, Mexico, Uruguay and the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela.

Intermediate position Posición intermedia (EDI between 0.80 and 0.94) | (15): Belize, Barbados, Bermuda, Bolivia (the Plurinational State of), Colombia, Costa Rica, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Guatemala, Guyana, Honduras, Panama, Paraguay, Peru and Saint Lucia.

Far from overall EFA Lejos del logro de la EPT (EDI below 0.80) | None.

Not included in the EDI calculation No incluidos en el cálculo del EDI (insufficient or no data) | (20): Anguilla, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Brazil, British Virgin Islands, Cayman Islands, Curaçao, Dominica, Grenada, Haiti, Jamaica, Montserrat, Nicaragua, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint-Martin, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Sint-Maarten, Suriname, Trinidad and Tobago and Turks and Caicos

PROSPECTS FOR EDUCATION FOR ALL GOALS 1, 2, 4 AND 5
PERSPECTIVAS PARA LAS METAS 1, 2, 4 Y 5 DE LA EDUCACION PARA TODOS

Goal 1: Likelihood of countries achieving a pre-primary gross enrolment ratio of at least 80% by 2015
Meta 1: Probabilidad de que los países logren una matrícula bruta de pre-primaria de al menos 80% en 2015

High level Nivel alto (GER: 80% and above) | (18): Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Aruba, Barbados, British Virgin Islands, Chile, Costa Rica, Cuba, Dominica, Ecuador, Grenada, Jamaica, Mexico, Peru, Suriname, Trinidad and Tobago, Uruguay and Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of).

Intermediate level Nivel intermedio (GER: 70–79%) | (4): El Salvador, Guatemala, Nicaragua and Panama

Low level Nivel bajo (GER: 30–69%) | (11): Anguilla, Belize, Bermuda, Bolivia (the Plurinational State of), Cayman Islands, Colombia, Dominican Republic, Guyana, Honduras, Paraguay and Saint Lucia

Very low level Nivel muy bajo (GER: <30%) | None

Not included in the prospects analysis No incluidos en el análisis prospectivo (insufficient or no data) | (10): Bahamas, Brazil, Curaçao, Haiti, Montserrat, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint-Martin, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Sint-Maarten and Turks and Caicos

Goal 2: Country prospects for achieving universal primary enrolment by 2015
Meta 2: Perspectivas de los países de lograr la matrícula universal en educación primaria en 2015

Target reached Meta cumplida (ANER: 97% and above) | (14): Aruba, Bahamas, Barbados, Belize, Cuba, El Salvador, Guatemala, Grenada, Honduras, Mexico, Nicaragua, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Trinidad and Tobago and Uruguay

Close to target Cerca de la meta (ANER: 95–96%) | (3): Ecuador, Peru and Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of)

Intermediate position Posición intermedia (ANER: 80–94%) | (10): Anguilla, Bolivia (the Plurinational State of), British Virgin Islands, Colombia, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Panama, Saint Lucia, Saint Kitts and Nevis and Suriname

Far from target Lejos de la meta (ANER: <80%) | (2): Guyana and Paraguay

Not included in the prospects analysis No incluidos en el análisis prospectivo (insufficient or no data) | (14): Antigua, Argentina, Bermuda, Brazil, Cayman Islands, Chile, Costa Rica, Curaçao, Haiti, Jamaica, Montserrat, Saint-Martin, Sint-Maarten and Turks and Caicos.

Goal 4: Country prospects for achieving the adult literacy target of halving the adult illiteracy rate by 2015
Meta 4: Perspectivas de los países de lograr la meta de reducir a la mitad el analfabetismo adulto en 2015

Adult literacy rate 97% and above
Tasa de alfabetismo adulto de 97% o más | (6): Argentina, Aruba, Chile, Cuba, Trinidad and Tobago and Uruguay

Target achieved Meta lograda (adult illiteracy halved or reduced by more)  | (4): Bolivia (the Plurinational State of), Costa Rica, Peru and Suriname

Close to target Cerca de la meta (adult illiteracy rate reduced by 40-49%)  |  (5): Guatemala, Honduras, Jamaica, Mexico and Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of)

Intermediate position Posición intermedia (adult illiteracy rate reduced by 30-39%) | (5): Brazil, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador and Panama

Far from target Lejos de la meta (adult illiteracy rate reduced by less than 30%)  | (2): Colombia and Nicaragua

Not included in the prospects analysis No incluidos en el análisis prospectivo (insufficient or no comparable data) | (20): Anguilla, Antigua and Barbuda, Bahamas, Barbados, Belize, Bermuda, British Virgin Islands, Cayman Islands, Curaçao, Dominica, Grenada, Guyana, Haiti, Montserrat, Paraguay, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Saint-Martin, Sint-Maartenand Turks.

Goal 5: Country prospects for achieving gender parity in primary and secondary education by 2015
Meta 5: Perspectivas de los países de lograr la equidad de género en educación primaria y secundaria en 2015

Gender parity in primary education
Paridad de género en educación primaria

Target reached Meta cumplida (GPI: 0.97-1.03)  | (20): Anguilla, Argentina, Aruba, Bahamas, Barbados, Belize, Bermuda, Bolivia (the Plurinational State of), Costa Rica, Cuba, Dominica, Ecuador, Guatemala, Honduras, Mexico, Nicaragua, Panama, Peru, Saint Kitts and Nevis and Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of)

Close to target Cerca de la meta (GPI: 0.95-0.96 or 1.04-1.05) | (7): Chile, Colombia, El Salvador, Paraguay, Saint Lucia, Trinidad and Tobago and Uruguay

Intermediate position Posición intermedia (GPI: 0.80-0.94 or 1.06-1.25)  | (6): British Virgin Islands, Dominican Republic, Grenada, Guyana, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines and Suriname

Far from target Lejos de la meta (GPI <0.80 or >1.25) None

Not included in the prospects analysis No incluidos en el análisis prospectivo (insufficient or no data) | (10): Antigua and Barbuda, Brazil, Cayman Islands, Curaçao, Haiti, Jamaica, Montserrat, Saint-Martin, Sint-Maarten and Turks and Caicos.

Gender parity in secondary education
Equidad de género en educación secundaria

Target reached Meta cumplida (GPI: 0.97-1.03)  | (11): Anguilla, Bolivia (the Plurinational State of), Chile, Cuba, Dominica, Ecuador, El Salvador, Grenada, Peru, Saint Lucia and Saint Kitts and Nevis

Close to target Cerca de la meta (GPI: 0.95-0.96 or 1.04-1.05)  | (3): Aruba, Bahamas and Costa Rica

Intermediate position Posición intermedia (GPI: 0.80-0.94 or 1.06-1.25)  | (18): Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Barbados, Belize, Bermuda, British Virgin Islands, Colombia, Dominican Republic, Guatemala, Guyana, Jamaica, Mexico, Nicaragua, Panama, Paraguay, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Uruguay, and Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of)

Far from target Lejos de la meta (GPI <0.80 or >1.25)  | (1): Suriname

Not included in the prospects analysis
No incluidos en el análisis prospectivo (insufficient or no data)  | (10): Brazil, Cayman Islands, Curaçao, Haiti, Honduras, Montserrat, Saint-Martin, Sint-Maarten, Trinidad and Tobago and Turks and Caicos.

*****

Related articles in this blog  | Artículos relacionados en este blog
1990-2015: Education for All
▸ Educación para Todos
(compilación)
International Initiatives for EducationIniciativas internacionales para la educación  (compilación)

2015

Rosa María Torres

Y finalmente llegó el 2015. Año que simboliza 'el futuro' en la película Volver al Futuro, el punto de llegada después de un largo viaje de 30 años.
Año preñado de metas, plazo de otros dos grandes viajes mundiales: la Educación para Todos (1990-2015) y los Objetivos de Desarrollo del Milenio (2000-2015). Se veía lejano en el año 2000.

Año 2000: bisagra del nuevo siglo y del nuevo milenio, pasó a ser horizonte de todos los planes de la humanidad. Ibamos a llegar al 2000 sin desnutrición infantil, sin analfabetismo, con educación de calidad, igualdad de género, trabajo y vivienda dignos, sociedades lectoras, interculturales, inclusivas.

En América Latina, el horizonte educativo giró en torno al Proyecto Principal de Educación para América Latina y el Caribe (PPE), acordado en México en 1979 e iniciado en 1980 balo la coordinación de la oficina regional de la UNESCO. Se suponía que íbamos a llegar al año 2000: a) con una educación general mínima de 8 a 10 años para todos los niños, b) sin analfabetismo y con servicios educativos para jóvenes y adultos con escolaridad incipiente o sin escolaridad, y c) con sistemas educativos mejorados en su calidad y eficiencia. Teníamos dos décadas para cumplir con las metas. No obstante, el 2000 nos encontró con la tarea a medio hacer, como se reconoció en 2001, en el cierre del PPE en Cochabamba-Bolivia.

A nivel mundial, el horizonte educativo del 2000 lo acaparó la iniciativa de Educación para Todos, lanzada en 1990 en la Conferencia Mundial sobre Educación para Todos (Jomtien-Tailandia) organizada por UNESCO, UNICEF, Banco Mundial y PNUD. En el marco de una 'visión ampliada de educación básica', al 2000 debíamos llegar con seis metas de educación básica cumplidas: (1) más actividades de cuidado y desarrollo de la primera infancia, (2) acceso universal a la educación primaria o al nivel considerado básico, (3) mejores resultados de aprendizaje, (4) analfabetismo reducido a la mitad, (5) más educación y capacitación de jóvenes y adultos, y (6) una población accediendo a información necesaria para vivir mejor, disponible a través de todos los medios. De la conferencia de Jomtien salí entusiasmada, dispuesta a trabajar a tiempo completo en la posibilidad de un mundo capaz de ofrecer "Educación para Todos": niños, jóvenes y adultos.

Pocos meses después recibía una invitación de UNICEF Nueva York para integrarme al equipo asesor que llevaría adelante la agenda de la EPT a nivel mundial. Seis años me entregué a esa tarea. Ya para 1995 estaba claro que las cosas eran mucho más complejas que lo anticipado y las inercias muy difíciles de vencer. Hubo avances importantes en algunos campos, pero las metas no se cumplieron. Así lo confirmó la evaluación de la década presentada en abril del 2000 en el Foro Mundial de Educación, en Dakar-Senegal.

Con los ánimos desinflados, allí mismo se decidió ampliar el plazo 15 años más. ¿Por qué 15 años? Se dijo que el 2015 estaba siendo elegido como nuevo año clave por otras agencias e iniciativas internacionales. En definitiva: no había una razón científica detrás de esa decisión. Esa vez, en Dakar, tuve la certeza de que las seis metas - revisadas - no se alcanzarían hasta el 2015. Había trabajado y aprendido mucho en los diez años entre Jomtien y Dakar, y tenía ahora el criterio y la experiencia para poder anticiparlo. Escribí al respecto un pequeño libro titulado "Una década de Educación para Todos: La tarea pendiente" (IIPE-UNESCO Buenos Aires, 2000).

El 2000 nos recibió no solo con Educación para Todos +15 sino también con flamantes Objetivos de Desarrollo del Milenio, lanzados en septiembre en la Cumbre del Milenio, cinco meses después del Foro de Dakar. Sus 8 objetivos, también con plazo al 2015, corresponden a una agenda multisectorial: (1) erradicar la pobreza extrema y el hambre, (2) lograr la enseñanza primaria universal, (3) promover la igualdad entre los géneros y el empoderamiento de la mujer, (4) reducir la mortalidad de los niños menores de 5 años, (5) mejorar la salud materna, (6 ) combatir el VIH/SIDA, la malaria y otras enfermedades; (7) garantizar la sostenibilidad del medio ambiente, y (8) fomentar una alianza mundial para el desarrollo. La meta 2 se refiere a niños y a completar una educación primaria de 4 años, sin ninguna atención a calidad ni aprendizajes. Una meta muy limitada en comparación con la Educación para Todos. Ambas agendas - EPT y ODM - han estado en manos de Naciones Unidas y coexistiendo incómodamente durante 15 años.

Y así llegamos al 2015, sin grandes expectativas, con poco que celebrar, otra vez con metas incumplidas, con grandes deudas pendientes tanto en la EPT como en los ODM. En los últimos años se convocó a redoblar esfuerzos. No obstante, la magnitud y complejidad de los problemas no dan para resolverlos con un empujón de último momento. Todos estos años se puso
el acento en el acceso y en los indicadores cuantitativos; ahora, la constatación de que millones de niños no pueden leer, escribir ni calcular después de asistir a la escuela durante 3 ó 4 años ha venido a mostrar con claridad que no basta con meter niños a la escuela, que el acceso no asegura aprendizaje, que cantidad y calidad son inseparables, y que todo ello implica cambios profundos en políticas y enfoques, un rotundo "no more business as usual" (no más hacer las cosas del mismo modo) que viene repitiéndose desde la conferencia de Jomtien, en 1990. 


De las reflexiones y debates en múltiples foros e instancias internacionales fue surgiendo el "post-2015", el qué hacer después. La nueva agenda de desarrollo - los Objetivos de Desarrollo Sostenible (ODS) - plantea el 2030 como nuevo plazo.

El listado contempla 17 objetivos y 169 metas; el Objetivo 4 se refiere a la educación -
"Garantizar una educación inclusiva, equitativa y de calidad. Y promover oportunidades de aprendizaje durante toda la vida para todos" - con metas que abarcan desde el desarrollo infantil hasta la educación universitaria. Los ODS se discutirán, aprobarán y darán a conocer por parte de Naciones Unidas en septiembre 2015.


En el Foro Mundial de Educación 2015 en Incheon, Corea del Sur, entre el 19 y el 21 de mayo, se debatirá la nueva agenda educativa 2015-2030 y se presentará el borrador de un nuevo Marco de Acción, a incorporarse a la agenda de los ODS. La versión final estará disponible en octubre/noviembre de 2015, cuando será adoptada en la 38 Conferencia General de la UNESCO.

¿Por qué 2030? ¿Qué hará que 15 años adicionales logren lo que 25 no lograron para la Educación para Todos y 15 para los Objetivos de Desarrollo del Milenio? ¿Nuevamente un paquete de objetivos y metas globales, iguales para todos? ¿Cuáles son las lecciones aprendidas que permiten comprender el camino recorrido - los problemas, los errores, los aciertos - y calibrar las opciones que se abren por delante?

En lo que hace a la Educación para Todos, el año 2000 y el Foro Mundial de Dakar han sido consignados oficialmente por la UNESCO como el punto de partida. La década de Jomtien (1990-2000), que se evaluó en Dakar, pasó a ser - literalmente - 'historia' y antecedente en el sitio web y en las publicaciones de la UNESCO y otras agencias internacionales. No obstante, lo cierto es que el proceso de la EPT no tiene 15 sino 25 años de vida y que una reflexión seria implicaría hacerse cargo de este cuarto de siglo.

En medio de la falta de información y el desinterés de la mayoría, y sin el indispensable análisis y debate de fondo que el asunto amerita, el mundo se apresta una vez más a establecer metas mundiales para la educación y para otros campos. Un ritual arriba-abajo que reitera las mismas dinámicas, que atribuye a las ONGs representación de una sociedad civil amplia siempre ausente de estos foros y decisiones, que sigue centrado en miradas sectoriales, alejado de la participación social y la comprensión.

Es posible que muchos de quienes tenemos una perspectiva histórica, quienes hemos participado y seguido de cerca este proceso desde hace más de 25 años, no estemos ya en el 2030 para ver lo logrado y no logrado en el "post-2015". Lastimosamente, la perspectiva histórica, la visión sistémica, el expertise construido en base a conocimiento y experiencia, tienen escaso valor en el mundo actual. No veo la utilidad de escribir un nuevo libro, uno que recoja no solo los 25 años de EPT sino el casi medio siglo de sucesivos y siempre inacabados planes internacionales para la educación. ¿A quién podría interesarle? Sí, tal vez, la importancia de reflexionar en voz alta sobre las lecciones aprendidas a lo largo de estos 25 años, de Jomtien a Incheon.

Quizás sea hora de apartarse de las ilusiones globales, de las macro-políticas, y de volver al territorio, a lo local, a la teoría, a la formación sistemática, al aprendizaje más que a la educación, a la creación y la experimentación en el campo pedagógico, filigrana crítica, apasionante e inalcanzable para los planes y las metas que se piensan allá arriba, en las agencias internacionales y en los mega-eventos mundiales. 

Para saber más 
Open Group Proposal for Sustainable Development Goals, United Nations, 2014. 
Informes de Seguimiento de la Educación para Todos en el Mundo
No creas todo lo que dicen de los Objetivos de Desarrollo del Milenio
, Jan Vandemoortele, El País, 16 feb. 2015 
¿Es una agenda con muchas metas imprecisas mejor que ninguna?Jan Vandemoortele, El País, 21 oct. 2014
PNUD, Informe 2014. Objetivos de Desarrollo del Milenio, 7 julio 2014
Millennium Development Goals and Sustainable Development Goals


Textos relacionados en OTRA∃DUCACION
América Latina: Seis décadas de metas para la educación
1990-2015: Educación para Todos - Education for All (compilación)
Education for All 2000-2015: How did Latin America do?

 

La «Educación para Todos» se encogió


Ilustración: John Krause


"El aprendizaje comienza con el nacimiento. Ello exige el cuidado temprano y la educación inicial de la infancia, lo que puede conseguirse mediante medidas destinadas a la familia, a la comunidad o las instituciones, según convenga.

El principal sistema para impartir educación básica fuera de la familia es la escuela primaria. Otros programas alternativos pueden ayudar a ampliar las necesidades de aprendizaje.

Las necesidades básicas de aprendizaje de jóvenes y adultos son diversas y pueden satisfacerse mediante sistemas variados".


Lo que se acordó en Jomtien, Tailandia, en 1990, en la Conferencia Mundial sobre Educación para Todos, fue el compromiso de asegurar educación básica a todos - niños, jóvenes y adultos - desde el nacimiento, dentro y fuera del sistema educativo, con una «visión ampliada
» de dicha educación básica (Recuadro 1).

¿Qué se entendió por educación básica? Una "educación capaz de satisfacer necesidades básicas de aprendizaje de niños, jóvenes y adultos en siete ámbitos esenciales:

1) la supervivencia,
2) el desarrollo pleno de las propias capa­cida­des,
3) el logro de una vida y un trabajo dignos,
4) una participación plena en el desarrollo local y nacional,
5) el mejoramiento de la calidad de vida,
6) la toma de decisiones informadas, y
7) la posibilidad de continuar aprendiendo.

Es decir: educación básica no es educación escolar ni equivalente a educación primaria o a cierto número de años de escolaridad.

Recuadro 1

EDUCACION BASICA

       VISION RESTRINGIDA (convencional)
              VISION AMPLIADA (Jomtien)
Niños.
Niños, jóvenes y adultos.
Aparato escolar.
Dentro y fuera del aparato escolar.
Un período de la vida de una persona.
Toda la vida, se inicia con el nacimiento.
Educación primaria (o un determinado número de años de estudio).
No se mide por el número de años o certificados de estudio sino por lo aprendido efectivamente.
Enseñanza de materias o asignaturas.
Satisfacción de necesidades básicas de aprendizaje.
Reconoce un único tipo de saber: el adquirido en el aparato escolar.
Reconoce como válidos diversos saberes, incluidos los saberes cotidianos y los tradicionales.
Uniformidad, todo igual para todos.
Diferenciación, pues son diversas las necesidades de aprendizaje (y los modos de satisfacerlas) entre culturas, grupos e individuos.
Estática (la reforma educativa como evento puntual y espasmódico).
Dinámica (la reforma educativa como proceso permanente).
Centrada en el punto de vista de la oferta (la institución escolar, sus componentes e insumos).
Centrada en el punto de vista de la demanda (alumnos, padres de familia, comunidad).
Centrada en la perspectiva de la enseñanza.
Centrada en la perspectiva del aprendizaje.
Responsabilidad del Ministerio de Educación (la educación como sector).
Involucra al Estado en su conjunto (la educación como campo de intervención multisectorial).
Responsabilidad del Estado.
Responsabilidad del Estado y de toda la sociedad.
Fuente: J.L. Coraggio y R.M. Torres, La educación según el Banco Mundial. CEM-Miño y Dávila Editores, Buenos Aires, 1997.

No obstante, como lo dijo en repetidas ocasiones el Foro Consultivo de la EPT (EFA Forum), desde el inicio fue evidente un «encogimiento» de la Educación para Todos en el concepto y en la práctica (ver Recuadro 2). La
«visión ampliada» de la educación básica, eje de la propuesta y aspecto más novedoso y potencialmente transformador de la misma, no llegó a plasmarse.

Recuadro 2

 EDUCACION PARA TODOS
PROPUESTA
Visión ampliada de educación básica
RESPUESTA
Visión restringida de educación básica
1.  Educación para todos (niños, jóvenes y adultos).
Educación para niños y niñas.
2.  Educación básica (satisfacción de necesidades básicas de aprendizaje, en la familia, la comunidad, el aparato escolar, los medios de comunicación, etc.).
Educación escolar (primaria) e incluso solo cuatro grados.
3.   Universalizar la educación básica (satisfacción universal de necesidades básicas de aprendizaje).
Universalizar el acceso a la escuela.
4.   Necesidades básicas de aprendizaje.
Necesidades mínimas de aprendizaje.
5.   Centrar la atención en el aprendizaje.
Mejorar y evaluar el rendimiento escolar.
6.   Ampliar la visión de la educación básica (el concepto, la mirada, la estrategia).
Ampliar el tiempo (número de años) de la escolaridad obligatoria.
7.   Educación básica como cimiento de aprendizajes posteriores (educación básica no como techo sino como piso).
Educación básica como fin en sí misma.
8.   Mejorar las condiciones de aprendizaje (condiciones materiales y afectivas indispensables para aprender: políticas complementarias de salud, nutrición, vivienda, etc.).
Mejorar las condiciones internas de la institución escolar (administración, currículo, textos escolares, asistencia y capacitación docente, etc.)
9.  Todos los países (también los industrializados tienen necesidades básicas de aprendizaje insatisfechas de la población).
Países en desarrollo.

10.  Responsabilidad de los países (organismos gubernamentales y no-gubernamentales) y comunidad internacional.
Responsabilidad de los países.

El «encogimiento» de la Educación para Todos (EPT)

La propuesta de EPT (Declaración y Marco de Acción) se prestaba a lecturas muy diversas, pudiendo derivarse de ella tanto una transformación educativa profunda como la reproducción ampliada - o a lo sumo mejorada - de lo mismo. Lamentable, aunque quizás previsiblemente, las interpretaciones que tendieron a dominar y a traducirse en políticas, tanto por parte de los países como de las agencias internacionales, se apegaron más a la tradición de la conservación y el mejoramiento que al desafío del replanteamiento y la transformación.

De hecho, muchos -- gobiernos, ONGs, organizaciones docentes, centros universitarios, agencias de cooperación -- nunca vieron novedad en los planteamientos de Jomtien, los cuales eran percidos apenas como una reiteración de lo conocido y una reiteración de viejas metas educativas incumplidas.

La vehemencia por lograr y mostrar resultados, en la que convergieron países y agencias internacionales, llevó a descuidar los procesos y las estrategias, y a operar dentro de la lógica del corto plazo. El énfasis sobre los indicadores cuantitativos y las coberturas impidió superar la ideología educativa convencional que disocia cantidad y calidad y que asocia progreso educativo con expansión antes que con transformación. Las propias agencias cultivaron este sesgo cuantitativo, presionando a los países a cumplir metas cuantitativas, en particular el incremento de la matrícula escolar, especialmente de las niñas.

La carrera por los números hizo perder de vista la calidad, reduciendo universalización a acceso, calidad a eficiencia, aprendizaje a rendimiento escolar, visión ampliada a aumento de años de escolaridad; llevó a desestimar la importancia de la investigación y la experimentación, ante la urgencia por hacer y por masificar; olvidó las lecciones aprendidas por los países y por las agencias en torno a la innovación educativa, su especificidad, sus condiciones de éxito y sustentabilidad, su dificultad para expandirse rápidamente o para dejarse transplantar a otros contextos.

Las metas cuantitativas y el ideario mismo de la EPT, con su visión ampliada de la educación básica, el enfoque de necesidades básicas de aprendizaje, y el foco en el aprendizaje, continúan siendo desafío abierto para la comunidad mundial, los gobiernos y la sociedad civil. Dicho ideario, inseparable de la posibilidad de una educación básica de calidad para todos, continúa siendo válido y está en sintonía con el paradigma del Aprendizaje a lo Largo de la Vida.

* Publicado en: Fuentes UNESCO, N° 122, "Educación para Todos: Diez años después de Jomtien", UNESCO, París, abril 2000. Argumentos tomados de mi libro Una década de Educación para Todos: La tarea pendiente, publicado en Uruguay (FUM-TEP), España (Editorial Popular), Venezuela (Editorial Laboratorio Educativo) y Argentina (IIPE UNESCO Buenos Aires).
https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000120280_spa



 

LinkWithin

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...