challenges of quality education

Four of the biggest problems facing education—and four trends that could make a difference

Eduardo velez bustillo, harry a. patrinos.

In 2022, we published, Lessons for the education sector from the COVID-19 pandemic , which was a follow up to,  Four Education Trends that Countries Everywhere Should Know About , which summarized views of education experts around the world on how to handle the most pressing issues facing the education sector then. We focused on neuroscience, the role of the private sector, education technology, inequality, and pedagogy.

Unfortunately, we think the four biggest problems facing education today in developing countries are the same ones we have identified in the last decades .

1. The learning crisis was made worse by COVID-19 school closures

Low quality instruction is a major constraint and prior to COVID-19, the learning poverty rate in low- and middle-income countries was 57% (6 out of 10 children could not read and understand basic texts by age 10). More dramatic is the case of Sub-Saharan Africa with a rate even higher at 86%. Several analyses show that the impact of the pandemic on student learning was significant, leaving students in low- and middle-income countries way behind in mathematics, reading and other subjects.  Some argue that learning poverty may be close to 70% after the pandemic , with a substantial long-term negative effect in future earnings. This generation could lose around $21 trillion in future salaries, with the vulnerable students affected the most.

2. Countries are not paying enough attention to early childhood care and education (ECCE)

At the pre-school level about two-thirds of countries do not have a proper legal framework to provide free and compulsory pre-primary education. According to UNESCO, only a minority of countries, mostly high-income, were making timely progress towards SDG4 benchmarks on early childhood indicators prior to the onset of COVID-19. And remember that ECCE is not only preparation for primary school. It can be the foundation for emotional wellbeing and learning throughout life; one of the best investments a country can make.

3. There is an inadequate supply of high-quality teachers

Low quality teaching is a huge problem and getting worse in many low- and middle-income countries.  In Sub-Saharan Africa, for example, the percentage of trained teachers fell from 84% in 2000 to 69% in 2019 . In addition, in many countries teachers are formally trained and as such qualified, but do not have the minimum pedagogical training. Globally, teachers for science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) subjects are the biggest shortfalls.

4. Decision-makers are not implementing evidence-based or pro-equity policies that guarantee solid foundations

It is difficult to understand the continued focus on non-evidence-based policies when there is so much that we know now about what works. Two factors contribute to this problem. One is the short tenure that top officials have when leading education systems. Examples of countries where ministers last less than one year on average are plentiful. The second and more worrisome deals with the fact that there is little attention given to empirical evidence when designing education policies.

To help improve on these four fronts, we see four supporting trends:

1. Neuroscience should be integrated into education policies

Policies considering neuroscience can help ensure that students get proper attention early to support brain development in the first 2-3 years of life. It can also help ensure that children learn to read at the proper age so that they will be able to acquire foundational skills to learn during the primary education cycle and from there on. Inputs like micronutrients, early child stimulation for gross and fine motor skills, speech and language and playing with other children before the age of three are cost-effective ways to get proper development. Early grade reading, using the pedagogical suggestion by the Early Grade Reading Assessment model, has improved learning outcomes in many low- and middle-income countries. We now have the tools to incorporate these advances into the teaching and learning system with AI , ChatGPT , MOOCs and online tutoring.

2. Reversing learning losses at home and at school

There is a real need to address the remaining and lingering losses due to school closures because of COVID-19.  Most students living in households with incomes under the poverty line in the developing world, roughly the bottom 80% in low-income countries and the bottom 50% in middle-income countries, do not have the minimum conditions to learn at home . These students do not have access to the internet, and, often, their parents or guardians do not have the necessary schooling level or the time to help them in their learning process. Connectivity for poor households is a priority. But learning continuity also requires the presence of an adult as a facilitator—a parent, guardian, instructor, or community worker assisting the student during the learning process while schools are closed or e-learning is used.

To recover from the negative impact of the pandemic, the school system will need to develop at the student level: (i) active and reflective learning; (ii) analytical and applied skills; (iii) strong self-esteem; (iv) attitudes supportive of cooperation and solidarity; and (v) a good knowledge of the curriculum areas. At the teacher (instructor, facilitator, parent) level, the system should aim to develop a new disposition toward the role of teacher as a guide and facilitator. And finally, the system also needs to increase parental involvement in the education of their children and be active part in the solution of the children’s problems. The Escuela Nueva Learning Circles or the Pratham Teaching at the Right Level (TaRL) are models that can be used.

3. Use of evidence to improve teaching and learning

We now know more about what works at scale to address the learning crisis. To help countries improve teaching and learning and make teaching an attractive profession, based on available empirical world-wide evidence , we need to improve its status, compensation policies and career progression structures; ensure pre-service education includes a strong practicum component so teachers are well equipped to transition and perform effectively in the classroom; and provide high-quality in-service professional development to ensure they keep teaching in an effective way. We also have the tools to address learning issues cost-effectively. The returns to schooling are high and increasing post-pandemic. But we also have the cost-benefit tools to make good decisions, and these suggest that structured pedagogy, teaching according to learning levels (with and without technology use) are proven effective and cost-effective .

4. The role of the private sector

When properly regulated the private sector can be an effective education provider, and it can help address the specific needs of countries. Most of the pedagogical models that have received international recognition come from the private sector. For example, the recipients of the Yidan Prize on education development are from the non-state sector experiences (Escuela Nueva, BRAC, edX, Pratham, CAMFED and New Education Initiative). In the context of the Artificial Intelligence movement, most of the tools that will revolutionize teaching and learning come from the private sector (i.e., big data, machine learning, electronic pedagogies like OER-Open Educational Resources, MOOCs, etc.). Around the world education technology start-ups are developing AI tools that may have a good potential to help improve quality of education .

After decades asking the same questions on how to improve the education systems of countries, we, finally, are finding answers that are very promising.  Governments need to be aware of this fact.

To receive weekly articles,  sign-up here  

Consultant, Education Sector, World Bank

Senior Adviser, Education

Join the Conversation

• Share on mail
• comments added

Challenges to quality education

Quality education: broad, right-based definition.

“Concerning quality education, nothing is more important than to make sure that you do not define quality education in a narrow way: quality education is broad, not only in its purpose, but also in terms of what it entails.

“I sometimes say that even if you have 90 per cent of children at school, you will still not be really close to a quality education system if the 10 per cent who are left out are the most vulnerable, because you do not have an equality focus.

“When we look at quality education, we therefore need to not only look at the aggregated numbers, we have to disaggregate them and look at what is the situation for girls, for children with special needs, for Indigenous groups. We have to check that we have a system that is actually reaching out to all.

“That is very important today, when everything is measured by numbers, because you can have positive numbers overall, but if minorities are not included because they do not create a big impact on the statistics, you certainly cannot consider that you have achieved universal quality education for all.

“So, quality comes into the content of education, which must be sensitive to diversity, and extends into teachers’ training, teaching and learning materials, the curriculum and textbooks.”

Pakistan: Hierarchy of exclusion

“You will see a lot of the same things in Pakistan.

“There is also a pyramid when it comes to access to education and we know, more or less, who will be the last ones to be included: usually, you reach the cities before you reach the rural areas; you reach boys before girls; you reach the mainstream population before the indigenous populations or the minorities; you reach the students with no special needs before the students with special needs.

“You can see that hierarchy in Pakistan. Cities have a higher school enrolment rate than rural areas where there are many communities with no schools at all. And we know that the enrolment rate for girls is much lower than that of the boys.

Girls’ education hampered by culture and tradition

“Now, our special focus in Pakistan is girls because their rate of school participation and completion is low, and the country has a very high drop-out rate too, both for boys and girls, but especially for girls.

“It is not the only country, but it is an example of a country where, in addition to working on the infrastructure, financing and public policies, they have to work on the cultural aspect and the attitudes, particularly with regards to girls’ education. Some will say it is a religious matter: I do not know how much of it is religious, but to me it is more of a cultural and traditional aspect.

“There are fundamentalists connected to the Taliban who actively work against girls having an education, shamelessly destroying schools providing education to girls, attacking them, threatening parents and girls against school participation. They always see girls’ education as a threat, particularly because being educated also means that you become independent.

“Some of this is just an inherited attitude and way of doing things. So, you need to work across a broad spectrum and also on changing attitudes, and that has to be done from within. I do not believe that we can or even should come from the outside and tell them what the right attitude is. However, we can support those who are working towards girls’ education, starting with local communities, and convincing them that this is good for their girls.

“I wish to stress that there are success stories: the rate of participation is increasing and you see girls who are breaking through social classes, coming out of poverty and managing to get an education, then becoming role models themselves.

“In Pakistan, they have just held elections, so I think it is important to seize the momentum. With the new government getting into place after the elections, things will hopefully calm down.

EI’s collaboration to advocate for education

“We came together with our affiliates and other cooperating partners such as the UN Special Envoy for Global Education, Gordon Brown. We got together to join forces, as in Haiti, to put demands on the government to have a development plan and a follow-up of this plan’s implementation.

“EI will also shortly launch a scholarship fund in Pakistan focusing on girls’ education.

“Above all, we want to sure that when violent people kill teachers, kill students, oppose girls’ education, they know that we are watching them. This is about putting the spotlight on what is happening, mobilising the local and global communities into distancing themselves from this terrible attitude. It is also about supporting those who are brave enough not to give up on a good cause and who need to know that they are not alone in their struggle to ensure quality education for all, including girls and women.

“I believe that Malala Day, the initiative by the UN Special Envoy for Global Education Gordon Brown, to be celebrated on November 10, is about the same thing: Malala is one girl, a symbol of bravery and fighting for a very important cause, i.e. girls’ education. On that day, we will be focusing on girls’ education all over the world, not just in Pakistan.

Emergency assistance to help rebuilding efforts

“Then there is the question of where do you start: that is why EI went into Haiti with emergency assistance, helping affiliates and teachers to get the basic infrastructure back after the earthquake hit.

“Now, they still have not rebuilt the country completely, and our support is increasingly directed at supporting our affiliates in building a coalition for quality public education in the country. We focus on how teachers, as professionals, and their unions can become agents and solutions to develop a quality public education system.

“With January’s mission, we were able to support our affiliates in not only having their campaign to build a quality public education system in Haiti, but also in bringing this campaign to the authorities, having a dialogue and cooperation with the latter to move forward.  We want to influence authorities with the right suggestions.

Haiti: Small, sustainable steps towards quality education under teachers’ supervision

“In Haiti, the government has developed a good plan on how to move forward. EI and its affiliates are the experts on what needs doing, but are also watchdogs monitoring that the plan for education is actually implemented. It is a difficult role to take, as you cannot expect to have quality public education for all children tomorrow in this country, so you have to agree to take one step at a time, sustainable steps building on each other for the future.

“While Haiti has to work to developing public education, it also has to work on its teacher training, higher education and curriculum development.

“Even if the Government itself does not have the money to finance the public sector, it can get involved and start taking control through teacher training and curriculum development.

“It is all about finding the right way forward and it is different for every country, because they have different levels of development.

Haiti lacks the money and the infrastructure; to a certain extent, it also lacks the public policies, but it is getting some of these in place, and teachers are crucial to implementing education policies.

“Haiti is a very good example in that respect: 85 per cent of education there is private. We can go into Haiti and take control of the national education system - but you have to realise that, even if you put the whole national public budget on the table, you would not be able to fund education for all. There is a big challenge in building a public sector in Haiti, because politicians actually do not have control over what public services should be.

“Furthermore, if you want to develop a country as an independent country, you have to support the long-term development of the infrastructure of a political system and a public education system. This means that you need to link individual schools together in the same system.

Devastating natural disasters

“Also, natural disasters struck both Haiti and Pakistan. It is devastating for poor countries that so many of them have natural disasters: they are so severe when they strike because these countries do not have the funds to prevent or deal with the consequences afterwards.

“It is different in a society such as Japan, where [natural disaster awareness] is part of education and the whole society is trained on what to do when an earthquake disaster strikes. Some say that the aftermath of the earthquake in Haiti was terrible, but it could have been a little better. Just look at the diseases that developed after the earthquake: if you had vaccination programmes, if you had had the knowledge that just by educating girls and women on the importance of letting your children have vaccination, you could have prevented some of the epidemics and diseases later. This is definitely a vicious circle where, in many ways, education is the solution and the tool to promote development.

Related Items

Education International Climate Network: Towards a pedagogy of hope for people and planet

Haiti: union building continues despite endemic violence

COVID-19 impact continues to affect terms and conditions in education

EIARC Adopts Resolutions to Protect Quality Education and Teachers

Best wishes for 2021!

"Education union drives for context-appropriate solutions to tackle Covid 19 challenges", by Shri N. Rangarajan & Dr. J Eswaran.

Shri n. rangarajan & dr. j eswaran.

Quality education an ‘essential pillar’ of a better future, says UN chief

Facebook Twitter Print Email

Education is an “essential pillar” to achieving the UN’s 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, UN chief António Guterres told an audience on Tuesday at the Paris headquarters of UNESCO, the UN Educational, Scientific and Culture Organization, ahead of the agency’s General Conference .

We must ensure universal access to basic education for every child, everywhere. Tijjani Muhammad-Bande, President, UN General Assembly

Mr. Guterres, who noted that one-fifth of young people are out of work, lack education or adequate training, praised UNESCO ’s fundamental role in coordinating and monitoring global efforts, such as the agency’s initiative on the future of education.

The theme was taken up by Tijjani Muhammad-Bande, President of the UN General Assembly, in his opening remarks to a ministerial meeting on education at the Conference.

Mr. Muhammad-Bande referred to estimates showing that some 265 million children are out of school. The number is projected to fall to 220 million over the next decade, but he declared that the illiteracy figures forecast for 2030 remain a scandal: “We must remove all barriers to education. We must ensure, at a minimum, universal access to basic education for every child, everywhere.”

He also highlighted the importance of educating children effectively, and equipping them with the necessary analytical and critical thinking abilities, in “an ever-changing and more complex world”.

Recalling his former experience as an educator in his home country of Nigeria, Mr. Muhammad-Bande called for more efforts to ensure that teachers are adequately qualified, because “no educational system can rise above the quality of its teachers”.

We must treat young people not as subjects to be protected, but as powerful agents for change.I was very pleased to meet a few of these changemakers at @UNESCO this morning. pic.twitter.com/DjgZP0jNh9 António Guterres, UN Secretary-General antonioguterres

Other important measures cited by the General Assembly President include strong curricula that fully integrate Information and Communications Technology (ICT); ensuring that girls complete at least 12 years of education (which, according to the World Bank, would add some $30 trillion to the global economy); and the effective monitoring and evaluation of learning.

Mr. Muhammad-Bande called on nations to meet their commitments to education spending, and for donor countries to increase international aid directed towards education.

‘Powerful agents of change’

As well as the difficulties in accessing quality education, Mr. Guterres also outlined several other challenges faced by young people: the fact that millions of girls become mothers while they are still children; that one quarter are affected by violence or conflict; and that online bullying and harassment are adding to high levels of stress, which see some 67,000 adolescents die from suicide or self-harm every year.

World leaders, and others who wield power, he continued, must treat young people not as subjects to be protected, but as powerful agents for change, and the role of the powerful is not to solve the enormous challenges faced by young people, but rather to give them the tools to tackle their problems.

Mr Guterres underscored the importance of bringing young people to the table as key partners, and praised UNESCO’s efforts to include their voices, which include holding a major event at the General Conference, and the Youth Forum .

• quality education

Ensuring Quality Education

UNESCO believes that education is a human right for all throughout life and that access must be matched by quality. The Organization is the only United Nations agency with a mandate to cover all aspects of education. It has been entrusted to lead the Global Education 2030 Agenda through Sustainable Development Goal 4.

UNESCO Office in Tashkent with its national partners implements a number of programmes and projects in areas of quality of education, improving curricula and supporting teacher training and the development of teaching materials, inclusive life-learning for all. UNESCO actively cooperates with the Ministries of Education (Ministry of preschool and school education, Ministry of higher education, science and innovation).

UNESCO works with schools to promote the ideals of UNESCO valuing rights and dignity, gender equality, social progress, freedom, justice and democracy, respect for diversity and international solidarity. The UNESCO Associated Schools Network (ASPnet) connects more than 12,000 schools in 182 countries, more than 45 schools in Uzbekistan are connected to this network and implement concrete actions in three priorities: education for sustainable development, global citizenship education and inter-cultural and heritage learning.

UNESCO also cooperates with educational institutions and universities around the world. UNESCO Chairs and UNITWIN Networks involves over 850 institutions in 117 countries, promotes international inter-university cooperation and networking to enhance institutional capacities through knowledge sharing and collaborative work. Eight UNESCO Chairs at seven universities in Uzbekistan are connected to global network to pool their resources, both human and material, to address pressing challenges and contribute to the development of their societies.

Related items

• Policy Advice
• Programme implementation
• Sharing knowledge
• Country page: Uzbekistan
• Region: Asia and the Pacific
• UNESCO Office in Tashkent
• See more add

More on this subject

Other recent articles

• IIEP Buenos Aires

• A global institute
• Governing Board
• Expert directory
• 60th anniversary
• Monitoring and evaluation

Latest news

• Upcoming events
• PlanED: The IIEP podcast
• Partnering with IIEP
• Career opportunities
• 11th Medium-Term Strategy
• Planning and management to improve learning
• Inclusion in education
• Using digital tools to promote transparency and accountability
• Ethics and corruption in education
• Digital technology to transform education
• Crisis-sensitive educational planning
• Rethinking national school calendars for climate-resilient learning
• Skills for the future
• Interactive map
• Foundations of education sector planning programmes
• Online specialized courses
• Customized, on-demand training
• Training in Buenos Aires
• Training in Dakar
• Preparation of strategic plans
• Sector diagnosis
• Costs and financing of education
• Tools for planning
• Crisis-sensitive education planning
• Supporting training centres
• Support for basic education quality management
• Gender at the Centre
• Teacher careers
• Geospatial data
• Cities and Education 2030
• Learning assessment data
• Governance and quality assurance
• School grants
• Early childhood education
• Flexible learning pathways in higher education
• Instructional leaders
• Planning for teachers in times of crisis and displacement
• Planning to fulfil the right to education
• Thematic resource portals
• Policy Fora
• Network of Education Policy Specialists in Latin America
• Publications
• Briefs, Papers, Tools
• Search the collection
• Visitors information
• Planipolis (Education plans and policies)
• IIEP Learning Portal
• Ethics and corruption ETICO Platform
• PEFOP (Vocational Training in Africa)
• SITEAL (Latin America)
• Policy toolbox
• Education for safety, resilience and social cohesion
• Health and Education Resource Centre
• Interactive Map
• Search deploy
• The institute

Defining and measuring the quality of education

Strategic_seminar1.jpg.

What is the quality of education? What are the most important aspects of quality and how can they be measured?

These questions have been raised for a long time and are still widely debated. The current understanding of education quality has considerably benefitted from the conceptual work undertaken through national and international initiatives to assess learning achievement. These provide valuable feedback to policy-makers on the competencies mastered by pupils and youths, and the factors which explain these. But there is also a growing awareness of the importance of values and behaviours, although these are more difficult to measure.  

To address these concerns, IIEP organized (on 15 December 2011) a Strategic Debate on “Defining and measuring the quality of education: Is there an emerging consensus?” The topic was approached from the point of view of two cross-national surveys: the OECD Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) and the Southern and Eastern Africa Consortium for Monitoring Educational Quality (SACMEQ)*.

Assessing the creativity of students

“Students’ capacity to extrapolate from what they know and apply this creatively in novel situations is more important than what the students know”, said Andreas Schleicher, Head of the Indicators and Analysis Division at the Directorate for Education, OECD, and in charge of PISA. This concept is reflected in current developments taking place in workplaces in many countries, which increasingly require non-routine interactive skills. When comparing the results obtained in different countries, PISA’s experience has shown that “education systems can creatively combine the equity and quality agenda in education”, Schleicher said. Contrary to conventional wisdom, countries can be both high-average performers in PISA while demonstrating low individual and institutional variance in students’ achievement. Finally, Schleicher emphasized that investment in education is not the only determining factor for quality, since good and consistent implementation of educational policy is also very important.

The importance of cross-national cooperation

When reviewing the experience of SACMEQ, Mioko Saito, Head a.i of the IIEP Equity, Access and Quality Unit (technically supporting the SACMEQ implementation in collaboration with SACMEQ Coordinating Centre), explained how the notion of educational quality has significantly evolved in the southern and eastern African region and became a priority over the past decades. Since 1995, SACMEQ has, on a regular basis, initiated cross-national assessments on the quality of education, and each member country has benefited considerably from this cooperation. It helped them embracing new assessment areas (such as HIV and AIDS knowledge) and units of analysis (teachers, as well as pupils) to produce evidence on what pupils and teachers know and master, said Saito. She concluded by stressing that SACMEQ also has a major capacity development mission and is concerned with having research results bear on policy decisions.  

The debate following the presentations focused on the crucial role of the media in stimulating public debate on the results of cross-national tests such as PISA and SACMEQ. It was also emphasized that more collaboration among the different cross-national mechanisms for the assessment of learner achievement would be beneficial. If more items were shared among the networks, more light could be shed on the international comparability of educational outcomes.

* PISA assesses the acquisition of key competencies for adult life of 15-year-olds in mathematics, reading, and science in OECD countries. SACMEQ focuses on achievements of Grade 6 pupils. Created in 1995, SACMEQ is a network of 15 southern and eastern African ministries of education: Botswana, Kenya, Lesotho, Malawi, Mauritius, Mozambique, Namibia, Seychelles, South Africa, Swaziland, Tanzania (Mainland), Tanzania (Zanzibar), Uganda, Zambia, and Zimbabwe

• Data, climate change, and refugee inclusion: how we protect education 16 April 2024
• Assessing flexibility in higher education: A new solution 08 April 2024
• Transforming education: learn the fundamentals of educational planning 02 April 2024
• PISA Website
• Andreas Schleicher's presentation pdf, 2.3 Mo
• Mioko Saito's presentation pdf, 1.6 Mo

• Privacy Notice

UNICEF Data : Monitoring the situation of children and women

GOAL 4: QUALITY EDUCATION

Ensure inclusive and equitable quality education and promote lifelong learning opportunities for all.

Goal 4 aims to ensure inclusive and equitable quality education and promote lifelong learning opportunities for all.  This goal supports the reduction of disparities and inequities in education, both in terms of access and quality. It recognizes the need to provide quality education for all, and most especially vulnerable populations, including poor children, children living in rural areas, persons with disabilities, indigenous people and refugee children.

This goal is of critical importance because of its transformative effects on the other SDGs. Sustainable development hinges on every child receiving a quality education. When children are offered the tools to develop to their full potential, they become productive adults ready to give back to their communities and break the cycle of poverty. Education enables upward socioeconomic mobility.

Significant progress was achieved during the last decade in increasing access to education and school enrolment rates at all levels, particularly for girls. Despite these gains, about 260 million children were out of school in 2018, nearly one fifth of the global population in that age group. Furthermore, more than half of all children and adolescents worldwide are failing to meet minimum proficiency standards in reading and mathematics.

UNICEF’s contribution towards reaching this goal centres on equity and inclusion to provide all children with quality learning opportunities and skills development programmes, from early childhood through adolescence. UNICEF works with governments worldwide to raise the quality and inclusiveness of schools.  

UNICEF is custodian for global monitoring of Indicator 4.2.1 Percentage of children (aged 24–59 months) developmentally on track in at least 3 of the 4 following domains: literacy-numeracy, physical, socio-emotional and learning.

Child-related SDG indicators

Target 4.1 by 2030, ensure that all girls and boys complete free, equitable and quality primary and secondary education leading to relevant and effective learning outcomes.

Proportion of children and young people: (a) in grades 2/3; (b) at the end of primary; and (c) at the end of lower secondary achieving at least a minimum proficiency level in (i) reading and (ii) mathematics, by sex

• Indicator definition
• Computation method
• Comments & limitations

Explore the data

The indicator aims to measure the percentage of children and young people who have achieved the minimum learning outcomes in reading and mathematics during or at the end of the relevant stages of education.

The higher the figure, the higher the proportion of children and/or young people reaching at least minimum proficiency in the respective domain (reading or mathematic) with the limitations indicated under the “Comments and limitations” section.

The indicator is also a direct measure of the learning outcomes achieved in the two subject areas at the end of the relevant stages of education. The three measurement points will have their own established minimum standard. There is only one threshold that divides students into above and below minimum:

Below minimum refers to the proportion or percentage of students who do not achieve a minimum standard as set up by countries according to the globally-defined minimum competencies.

Above minimum refers to the proportion or percentage of students who have achieved the minimum standards. Due to heterogeneity of performance levels set by national and cross-national assessments, these performance levels will have to be mapped to the globally-defined minimum performance levels. Once the performance levels are mapped, the global education community will be able to identify for each country the proportion or percentage of children who achieved minimum standards.

(a) Minimum proficiency level (MPL) is the benchmark of basic knowledge in a domain (mathematics, reading, etc.) measured through learning assessments. In September 2018, an agreement was reached on a verbal definition of the global minimum proficiency level of reference for each of the areas and domains of Indicator 4.1.1 as described in the document entitled: Minimum Proficiency Levels (MPLs): Outcomes of the consensus building meeting ( http://gaml.uis.unesco.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2019/02/MPLs_revised_doc_20190204.docx ).

Minimum proficiency levels (MPLs) defined by each learning assessment to ensure comparability across learning assessments; a verbal definition of MPL for each domain and levels between cross-national assessments (CNAs) were established by conducting an analysis of the performance level descriptors, the descriptions of the performance levels to express the knowledge and skills required to achieve each performance level by domain, of cross-national, regional and community-led tests in reading and mathematics. The analysis was led and completed by the UIS and a consensus among experts on the proposed methodology was deemed adequate and pragmatic.

The global MPL definitions for the domains of reading and mathematics are presented here (insert link)

The Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) reading test has six proficiency levels, of which Level 2 is described as the minimum proficiency level. In Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) and Progress in International Reading Literacy Study (PIRLS), there are four proficiency levels: Low, Intermediate, High and Advanced. Students reaching the Intermediate benchmark are able to apply basic knowledge in a variety of situations, similar to the idea of minimum proficiency. Currently, there are no common standards validated by the international community or countries. The indicator shows data published by each of the agencies and organizations specialised in cross-national learning assessments.

(a) The number of children and/or young people at the relevant stage of education n in year t achieving at least the pre-defined proficiency level in subject s expressed as a percentage of the number of children and/or young people at stage of education n, in year t, in any proficiency level in subjects.

Harmonize various data sources To address the challenges posed by the limited capacity of some countries to implement cross- national, regional and national assessments, actions have been taken by the UIS and its partners. The strategies are used according to its level of precision and following a reporting protocol ( http://gaml.uis.unesco.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2019/05/GAML6-WD-2-Protocol-for-reporting-4.1.1_v1.pdf ) that includes the national assessments under specific circumstances.

Out-of-school children In 2016, 263 million children, adolescents and youth were out of school, representing nearly one-fifth of the global population of this age group. 63 million, or 24% of the total, are children of primary school age (typically 6 to 11 years old); 61 million, or 23% of the total, are adolescents of lower secondary school age (typically 12 to 14 years old); and 139 million, or 53% of the total, are youth of upper secondary school age (about 15 to 17 years old). Not all these kids will be permanently outside school, some will re-join the educational system and, eventually, complete late, while some of them will enter late. The quantity varies per country and region and demands some adjustment in the estimate of Indicator 4.1.1. There is currently a discussion on how to implement these adjustments to reflect all the population. In 2017, the UIS proposed to make adjustments using the out-of-school children and the completion rates.( http://uis.unesco.org/en/blog/helping-countries-improve-their-data-out-school-children ) and the completion rates.

Learning outcomes from cross-national learning assessment are directly comparable for all countries which participated in the same cross-national learning assessments. However, these outcomes are not comparable across different cross-national learning assessments or with national learning assessments. A level of comparability of learning outcomes across assessments could be achieved by using different methodologies, each with varying standard errors. The period of 2020-2021 will shed light on the standard errors’ size for these methodologies.

The comparability of learning outcomes over time has additional complications, which require, ideally, to design and implement a set of comparable items as anchors in advance. Methodological developments are underway to address comparability of assessments outcomes over time.

While data from many national assessments are available now, every country sets its own standards so the performance levels might not be comparable. One option is to link existing regional assessments based on a common framework. Furthermore, assessments are typically administered within school systems, the current indicators cover only those in school and the proportion of in-school target populations might vary from country to country due to varied out-of-school children populations. Assessing competencies of children and young people who are out of school would require household-based surveys. Assessing children in households is under consideration but may be very costly and difficult to administer and unlikely to be available on the scale needed within the next 3-5 years. Finally, the calculation of this indicator requires specific information on the ages of children participating in assessments to create globally-comparable data. The ages of children reported by the head of the household might not be consistent and reliable so the calculation of the indicator may be even more challenging. Due to the complication in assessing out-of-school children and the main focus on improving education system, the UIS is taking a stepping stone approach. It will concentrate on assessing children in school in the medium term, where much data are available, then develop more coherent implementation plan to assess out-of-school children in the longer term.

Click on the button below to explore the data behind this indicator.

Completion rate (primary education, lower secondary education, upper secondary education)

A completion rate of 100% indicates that all children and adolescents have completed a level of education by the time they are 3 to 5 years older than the official age of entry into the last grade of that level of education. A low completion rate indicates low or delayed entry into a given level of education, high drop-out, high repetition, late completion, or a combination of these factors.

Percentage of a cohort of children or young people aged 3-5 years above the intended age for the last grade of each level of education who have completed that grade.

The intended age for the last grade of each level of education is the age at which pupils would enter the grade if they had started school at the official primary entrance age, had studied full-time and had progressed without repeating or skipping a grade.

For example, if the official age of entry into primary education is 6 years, and if primary education has 6 grades, the intended age for the last grade of primary education is 11 years. In this case, 14-16 years (11 + 3 = 14 and 11 + 5 = 16) would be the reference age group for calculation of the primary completion rate.

The number of persons in the relevant age group who have completed the last grade of a given level of education is divided by the total population (in the survey sample) of the same age group.

The age group 3-5 years above the official age of entry into the last grade for a given level of education was selected for the calculation of the completion rate to allow for some delayed entry or repetition. In countries where entry can occur very late or where repetition is common, some children or adolescents in the age group examined may still attend school and the eventual rate of completion may therefore be underestimated.

The indicator is calculated from household survey data and is subject to time lag in the availability of data. When multiple surveys are available, they may provide conflicting information due to the possible presence of sampling and non-sampling errors in survey data. The Technical Cooperation Group on the Indicators for SDG 4 – Education 2030 (TCG) has requested a refinement of the methodology to model completion rate estimates, following an approach similar to that used for the estimation of child mortality rates. The model would ensure that common challenges with household survey data, such as timeliness and sampling or non-sampling errors are addressed to provide up-to-date and more robust data.

TARGET 4.2 By 2030, ensure that all girls and boys have access to quality early childhood development, care and pre-primary education so that they are ready for primary education

Proportion of children aged 24-59 months of age who are developmentally on track in health, learning and psychosocial well-being, by sex.

Early childhood development (ECD) sets the stage for life-long thriving. Investing in ECD is one of the most critical and cost-effective investments a country can make to improve adult health, education and productivity in order to build human capital and promote sustainable development. ECD is equity from the start and provides a good indication of national development. Efforts to improve ECD can bring about human, social and economic improvements for both individuals and societies.

The recommended measure for SDG 4.2.1 is the Early Childhood Development Index 2030 (ECDI2030) which is a 20-item instrument to measure developmental outcomes among children aged 24 to 59 months in population-based surveys. The indicator derived from the ECDI2030 is the proportion of children aged 24 to 59 months who have achieved the minimum number of milestones expected for their age group, defined as follows:

– Children age 24 to 29 months are classified as developmentally on-track if they have achieved at least 7 milestones – Children age 30 to 35 months are classified as developmentally on-track if they have achieved at least 9 milestones – Children age 36 to 41 months are classified as developmentally on-track if they have achieved at least 11 milestones – Children age 42 to 47 months are classified as developmentally on-track if they have achieved at least 13 milestones – Children age 48 to 59 months are classified as developmentally on-track if they have achieved at least 15 milestones

SDG indicator 4.2.1 is intended to capture the multidimensional and holistic nature of early childhood development. For this reason, the indicator is not intended to be disaggregated by domains since development in all areas (health, learning and psychosocial wellbeing) are interconnected and overlapping, particularly among young children. The indicator is intended to produce a single summary score to indicate the proportion of children considered to be developmentally on track.

The domains included in the indicator for SDG indicator 4.2.1 include the following concepts:

Health: gross motor development, fine motor development and self-care Learning: expressive language, literacy, numeracy, pre-writing, and executive functioning Psychosocial well-being: emotional skills, social skills, internalizing behavior, and externalizing behavior

The number of children aged 24 to 59 months who are developmentally on track in health, learning and psychosocial well-being divided by the total number of children aged 24 to 59 months in the population multiplied by 100.

SDG 4.2.1 was initially classified as Tier 3 and was upgraded to Tier 2 in 2019; additionally, changes to the indicator were made during the 2020 comprehensive review. In light of this and given that the ECDI2030 was officially released in March 2020, it will take some time for country uptake and implementation of the new measure and for data to become available from a sufficiently large enough number of countries. Therefore, in the meantime, a proxy indicator (children aged 36-59 months who are developmentally ontrack in at least three of the following four domains: literacy-numeracy, physical, social-emotional and learning) will be used to report on 4.2.1, when relevant. This proxy indicator has been used for global SDG reporting since 2015 but is not fully aligned with the definition and age group covered by the SDG indicator formulation. When the proxy indicator is used for SDG reporting on 4.2.1 for a country, it will be footnoted as such in the global SDG database.

Click on the button below to explore the data behind this indicator’s proxy; Children aged 36-59 months who are developmentally ontrack in at least three of the following four domains: literacy-numeracy, physical, social-emotional and learning . For more information about this proxy indicator, please see “Comments and Limitations”

Adjusted net attendance rate, one year before the official primary entry age

The indicator measures children’s exposure to organized learning activities in the year prior to the official age to start of primary school as a representation of access to quality early childhood care and pre-primary education. One year prior to the start of primary school is selected for international comparison. A high value of the indicator shows a high degree of participation in organized learning immediately before the official entrance age to primary education.

The participation rate in organized learning (one year before the official primary entry age), by sex as defined as the percentage of children in the given age range who participate in one or more organized learning programme, including programmes which offer a combination of education and care. Participation in early childhood and in primary education are both included. The age range will vary by country depending on the official age for entry to primary education.

An organized learning programme is one which consists of a coherent set or sequence of educational activities designed with the intention of achieving pre-determined learning outcomes or the accomplishment of a specific set of educational tasks. Early childhood and primary education programmes are examples of organized learning programmes.

Early childhood and primary education are defined in the 2011 revision of the International Standard Classification of Education (ISCED 2011). Early childhood education is typically designed with a holistic approach to support children’s early cognitive, physical, social and emotional development and to introduce young children to organized instruction outside the family context. Primary education offers learning and educational activities designed to provide students with fundamental skills in reading, writing and mathematics and establish a solid foundation for learning and understanding core areas of knowledge and personal development. It focuses on learning at a basic level of complexity with little, if any, specialisation.

The official primary entry age is the age at which children are obliged to start primary education according to national legislation or policies. Where more than one age is specified, for example, in different parts of a country, the most common official entry age (i.e. the age at which most children in the country are expected to start primary) is used for the calculation of this indicator at the global level.

The number of children in the relevant age group who participate in an organized learning programme is expressed as a percentage of the total population in the same age range. From household surveys, both enrolments and population are collected at the same time.

Participation in learning programmes in the early years is not full time for many children, meaning that exposure to learning environments outside of the home will vary in intensity. The indicator measures the percentage of children who are exposed to organized learning but not the intensity of the programme, which limits the ability to draw conclusions on the extent to which this target is being achieved. More work is needed to ensure that the definition of learning programmes is consistent across various surveys and defined in a manner that is easily understood by survey respondents, ideally with complementary information collected on the amount of time children spend in learning programmes.

TARGET 4.a Build and upgrade education facilities that are child, disability and gender sensitive and provide safe, non-violent, inclusive and effective learning environments for all

Proportion of schools offering basic services, by type of service.

This indicator measures the presence of basic services and facilities in school that are necessary to ensure a safe and effective learning environment for all students. A high value indicates that schools have good access to the relevant services and facilities. Ideally each school should have access to all these services and facilities.

The percentage of schools by level of education (primary education) with access to the given facility or service

Electricity: Regularly and readily available sources of power (e.g. grid/mains connection, wind, water, solar and fuel-powered generator, etc.) that enable the adequate and sustainable use of ICT infrastructure for educational purposes.

Internet for pedagogical purposes: Internet that is available for enhancing teaching and learning and is accessible by pupils. Internet is defined as a worldwide interconnected computer network, which provides pupils access to a number of communication services including the World Wide Web and carries e-mail, news, entertainment and data files, irrespective of the device used (i.e. not assumed to be only via a computer) and thus can also be accessed by mobile telephone, tablet, PDA, games machine, digital TV etc.). Access can be via a fixed narrowband, fixed broadband, or via mobile network.

Computers for pedagogical use: Use of computers to support course delivery or independent teaching and learning needs. This may include activities using computers or the Internet to meet information needs for research purposes; develop presentations; perform hands-on exercises and experiments; share information; and participate in online discussion forums for educational purposes. A computer is a programmable electronic device that can store, retrieve and process data, as well as share information in a highly-structured manner. It performs high-speed mathematical or logical operations according to a set of instructions or algorithms.

Computers include the following types: -A desktop computer usually remains fixed in one place; normally the user is placed in front of it, behind the keyboard; – A laptop computer is small enough to carry and usually enables the same tasks as a desktop computer; it includes notebooks and netbooks but does not include tablets and similar handheld devices; and – A tablet (or similar handheld computer) is a computer that is integrated into a flat touch screen, operated by touching the screen rather than using a physical keyboard.

Adapted infrastructure is defined as any built environment related to education facilities that are accessible to all users, including those with different types of disability, to be able to gain access to use and exit from them. Accessibility includes ease of independent approach, entry, evacuation and/or use of a building and its services and facilities (such as water and sanitation), by all of the building’s potential users with an assurance of individual health, safety and welfare during the course of those activities.

Adapted materials include learning materials and assistive products that enable students and teachers with disabilities/functioning limitations to access learning and to participate fully in the school environment.

Accessible learning materials include textbooks, instructional materials, assessments and other materials that are available and provided in appropriate formats such as audio, braille, sign language and simplified formats that can be used by students and teachers with disabilities/functioning limitations.

Basic drinking water is defined as a functional drinking water source (MDG ‘improved’ categories) on or near the premises and water points accessible to all users during school hours.

Basic sanitation facilities are defined as functional sanitation facilities (MDG ‘improved’ categories) separated for males and females on or near the premises.

Basic handwashing facilities are defined as functional handwashing facilities, with soap and water available to all girls and boys.

The number of schools in a given level of education with access to the relevant facilities is expressed as a percentage of all schools at that level of education.

The indicator measures the existence in schools of the given service or facility but not its quality or operational state.

For every child to learn, UNICEF has eight key asks of governments:

• A demonstration of how the SDG 4 global ambitions are being nationalized into plans, policies, budgets, data collection efforts and reports.
• A renewed commitment to education to recover learning losses and manage impacts of COVID-19.
• The implementation and scaling of digital learning solutions and innovations to reimagine education.
• Attention to skills development should be a core component to education.
• Focus to provide quality education to the most vulnerable – including girls, children affected by conflict and crisis, children with disabilities, refugees and displaced children.
• A continued commitment to improving access to pre-primary, primary and secondary education for all, including for children from minority groups and those with disabilities.
• A renewed focus on learning outcomes and their enablers, including learning in safe and adequate environments, support by well-trained teachers and structured content.
• The implementation of SDG-focused learning throughout schools to raise awareness and inspire positive action.

Learn more about  UNICEF’s key asks for implementing Goal 4

See more Sustainable Development Goals

ZERO HUNGER

GOOD HEALTH AND WELL-BEING

QUALITY EDUCATION

GENDER EQUALITY

CLEAN WATER AND SANITATION

AFFORDABLE AND CLEAN ENERGY

DECENT WORK AND ECONOMIC GROWTH

REDUCED INEQUALITIES

CLIMATE ACTION

PEACE, JUSTICE AND STRONG INSTITUTIONS

PARTNERSHIPS FOR THE GOALS

The global education challenge: Scaling up to tackle the learning crisis

• Download the policy brief

Subscribe to Global Connection

Alice albright alice albright chief executive officer - global partnership for education @alicealbright.

July 25, 2019

The following is one of eight briefs commissioned for the 16th annual Brookings Blum Roundtable, “2020 and beyond: Maintaining the bipartisan narrative on US global development.”

Addressing today’s massive global education crisis requires some disruption and the development of a new 21st-century aid delivery model built on a strong operational public-private partnership and results-based financing model that rewards political leadership and progress on overcoming priority obstacles to equitable access and learning in least developed countries (LDCs) and lower-middle-income countries (LMICs). Success will also require a more efficient and unified global education architecture. More money alone will not fix the problem. Addressing this global challenge requires new champions at the highest level and new approaches.

Key data points

In an era when youth are the fastest-growing segment of the population in many parts of the world, new data from the UNESCO Institute for Statistics (UIS) reveals that an estimated 263 million children and young people are out of school, overwhelmingly in LDCs and LMICs. 1 On current trends, the International Commission on Financing Education Opportunity reported in 2016 that, a far larger number—825 million young people—will not have the basic literacy, numeracy, and digital skills to compete for the jobs of 2030. 2 Absent a significant political and financial investment in their education, beginning with basic education, there is a serious risk that this youth “bulge” will drive instability and constrain economic growth.

Despite progress in gender parity, it will take about 100 years to reach true gender equality at secondary school level in LDCs and LMICs. Lack of education and related employment opportunities in these countries presents national, regional, and global security risks.

Related Books

Amar Bhattacharya, Homi Kharas, John W. McArthur

November 15, 2023

Geoffrey Gertz, Homi Kharas, Johannes F. Linn

September 12, 2017

Esther Care, Patrick Griffin

April 11, 2017

Among global education’s most urgent challenges is a severe lack of trained teachers, particularly female teachers. An additional 9 million trained teachers are needed in sub-Saharan Africa by 2030.

Refugees and internally displaced people, now numbering over 70 million, constitute a global crisis. Two-thirds of the people in this group are women and children; host countries, many fragile themselves, struggle to provide access to education to such people.

Highlighted below are actions and reforms that could lead the way toward solving the crisis:

• Leadership to jump-start transformation. The next U.S. administration should convene a high-level White House conference of sovereign donors, developing country leaders, key multilateral organizations, private sector and major philanthropists/foundations, and civil society to jump-start and energize a new, 10-year global response to this challenge. A key goal of this decadelong effort should be to transform education systems in the world’s poorest countries, particularly for girls and women, within a generation. That implies advancing much faster than the 100-plus years required if current programs and commitments remain as is.
• A whole-of-government leadership response. Such transformation of currently weak education systems in scores of countries over a generation will require sustained top-level political leadership, accompanied by substantial new donor and developing country investments. To ensure sustained attention for this initiative over multiple years, the U.S. administration will need to designate senior officials in the State Department, USAID, the National Security Council, the Office of Management and Budget, and elsewhere to form a whole-of-government leadership response that can energize other governments and actors.
• Teacher training and deployment at scale. A key component of a new global highest-level effort, based on securing progress against the Sustainable Development Goals and the Addis 2030 Framework, should be the training and deployment of 9 million new qualified teachers, particularly female teachers, in sub-Saharan Africa where they are most needed. Over 90 percent of the Global Partnership for Education’s education sector implementation grants have included investments in teacher development and training and 76 percent in the provision of learning materials.
• Foster positive disruption by engaging community level non-state actors who are providing education services in marginal areas where national systems do not reach the population. Related to this, increased financial and technical support to national governments are required to strengthen their non-state actor regulatory frameworks. Such frameworks must ensure that any non-state actors operate without discrimination and prioritize access for the most marginalized. The ideological divide on this issue—featuring a strong resistance by defenders of public education to tap into the capacities and networks of non-state actors—must be resolved if we are to achieve a rapid breakthrough.
• Confirm the appropriate roles for technology in equitably advancing access and quality of education, including in the initial and ongoing training of teachers and administrators, delivery of distance education to marginalized communities and assessment of learning, strengthening of basic systems, and increased efficiency of systems. This is not primarily about how various gadgets can help advance education goals.
• Commodity component. Availability of appropriate learning materials for every child sitting in a classroom—right level, right language, and right subject matter. Lack of books and other learning materials is a persistent problem throughout education systems—from early grades through to teaching colleges. Teachers need books and other materials to do their jobs. Consider how the USAID-hosted Global Book Alliance, working to address costs and supply chain issues, distribution challenges, and more can be strengthened and supported to produce the model(s) that can overcome these challenges.

Annual high-level stock take at the G-7. The next U.S. administration can work with G-7 partners to secure agreement on an annual stocktaking of progress against this new global education agenda at the upcoming G-7 summits. This also will help ensure sustained focus and pressure to deliver especially on equity and inclusion. Global Partnership for Education’s participation at the G-7 Gender Equality Advisory Council is helping ensure that momentum is maintained to mobilize the necessary political leadership and expertise at country level to rapidly step up progress in gender equality, in and through education. 3 Also consider a role for the G-20, given participation by some developing country partners.

Related Content

Jenny Perlman Robinson, Molly Curtiss Wyss

July 3, 2018

Michelle Kaffenberger

May 17, 2019

Ramya Vivekanandan

February 14, 2019

• “263 Million Children and Youth Are Out of School.” UNESCO UIS. July 15, 2016. http://uis.unesco.org/en/news/263-million-children-and-youth-are-out-school.
• “The Learning Generation: Investing in education for a changing world.” The International Commission on Financing Global Education Opportunity. 2016. https://report.educationcommission.org/downloads/.
• “Influencing the most powerful nations to invest in the power of girls.” Global Partnership for Education. March 12, 2019. https://www.globalpartnership.org/blog/influencing-most-powerful-nations-invest-power-girls.

Global Education

Global Economy and Development

Elyse Painter, Emily Gustafsson-Wright

January 5, 2024

Online only

9:00 am - 10:00 am EST

Nariman Moustafa

October 20, 2023

The Ongoing Challenges, and Possible Solutions, to Improving Educational Equity

• Share article

Schools across the country were already facing major equity challenges before the pandemic, but the disruptions it caused exacerbated them.

After students came back to school buildings after more than a year of hybrid schooling, districts were dealing with discipline challenges and re-segregating schools. In a national EdWeek Research Center survey from October, 65 percent of the 824 teachers, and school and district leaders surveyed said they were more concerned now than before the pandemic about closing academic opportunity gaps that impact learning for students of different races, socioeconomic levels, disability categories, and English-learner statuses.

But educators trying to prioritize equity have an uphill battle to overcome these challenges, especially in the face of legislation and school policies attempting to fight equity initiatives across the country.

The pandemic and the 2020 murder of George Floyd drove many districts to recognize longstanding racial disparities in academics, discipline, and access to resources and commit to addressing them. But in 2021, a backlash to such equity initiatives accelerated, and has now resulted in 18 states passing laws restricting lessons on race and racism, and many also passing laws restricting the rights and well-being of LGBTQ students.

This slew of Republican-driven legislation presents a new hurdle for districts looking to address racial and other inequities in public schools.

During an Education Week K-12 Essentials forum last week, journalists, educators, and researchers talked about these challenges, and possible solutions to improving equity in education.

Takeru Nagayoshi, who was the Massachusetts teacher of the year in 2020, and one of the speakers at the forum, said he never felt represented as a gay, Asian kid in public school until he read about the Stonewall Riots, the Civil Rights Movement, and the full history of marginalized groups working together to change systems of oppression.

“Those are the learning experiences that inspired me to be a teacher and to commit to a life of making our country better for everyone,” he said.

“Our students really benefit the most when they learn about themselves and the world that they’re in. They’re in a safe space with teachers who provide them with an honest education and accurate history.”

Here are some takeaways from the discussion:

Schools are still heavily segregated

Almost 70 years after the Supreme Court ruled in Brown v. Board of Education that racial segregation in public schools was unconstitutional, most students attend schools where they see a majority of other students of their racial demographics .

Black students, who accounted for 15 percent of public school enrollment in 2019, attended schools where Black students made up an average of 47 percent of enrollment, according to a UCLA report.

They attended schools with a combined Black and Latinx enrollment averaging 67 percent, while Latinx students attended schools with a combined Black and Latinx enrollment averaging 66 percent.

Overall, the proportion of schools where the majority of students are not white increased from 14.8 percent of schools in 2003 to 18.2 percent in 2016.

“Predominantly minority schools [get] fewer resources, and that’s one problem, but there’s another problem too, and it’s a sort of a problem for democracy,” said John Borkowski, education lawyer at Husch Blackwell.

“I think it’s much better for a multi-racial, multi-ethnic democracy, when people have opportunities to interact with one another, to learn together, you know, and you see all of the problems we’ve had in recent years with the rising of white supremacy, and white supremacist groups.”

School discipline issues were exacerbated because of student trauma

In the absence of national data on school discipline, anecdotal evidence and expert interviews suggest that suspensions—both in and out of school—and expulsions, declined when students went remote.

In 2021, the number of incidents increased again when most students were back in school buildings, but were still lower than pre-pandemic levels , according to research by Richard Welsh, an associate professor of education and public policy at Vanderbilt’s Peabody College of Education.

But forum attendees, who were mostly district and school leaders as well as teachers, disagreed, with 66 percent saying that the pandemic made school incidents warranting discipline worse. That’s likely because of heightened student trauma from the pandemic. Eighty-three percent of forum attendees who responded to a spot survey said they had noticed an increase in behavioral issues since resuming in-person school.

Restorative justice in education is gaining popularity

One reason Welsh thought discipline incidents did not yet surpass pre-pandemic levels despite heightened student trauma is the adoption of restorative justice practices, which focus on conflict resolution, understanding the causes of students’ disruptive behavior, and addressing the reason behind it instead of handing out punishments.

Kansas City Public Schools is one example of a district that has had improvement with restorative justice, with about two thirds of the district’s 35 schools seeing a decrease in suspensions and expulsions in 2021 compared with 2019.

Forum attendees echoed the need for or success of restorative justice, with 36 percent of those who answered a poll within the forum saying restorative justice works in their district or school, and 27 percent saying they wished their district would implement some of its tenets.

However, 12 percent of poll respondents also said that restorative justice had not worked for them. Racial disparities in school discipline also still persist, despite restorative justice being implemented, which indicates that those practices might not be ideal for addressing the over-disciplining of Black, Latinx, and other historically marginalized students.

Sign Up for The Savvy Principal

Edweek top school jobs.

Sign Up & Sign In

Advertisement

What is quality education? How can it be achieved? The perspectives of school middle leaders in Singapore

• Published: 12 June 2015
• Volume 27 , pages 307–322, ( 2015 )

Cite this article

• Pak Tee Ng 1  

3635 Accesses

18 Citations

8 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

This paper presents the findings of a research project that examines how middle leaders in Singapore schools understand ‘quality education’ and how they think quality education can be achieved. From the perspective of these middle leaders, quality education emphasises holistic development, equips students with the knowledge and skills for the future, inculcates students with the right values and imbues students with a positive learning attitude. Quality education is delivered by good teachers, enabled by good teaching and learning processes and facilitated by a conducive learning environment. The challenge of achieving quality education is to find the balance between lofty ideals and ground realities. One critical implication of the research findings is that policymakers should appeal to the ideals of practitioners to drive change.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price includes VAT (Russian Federation)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Rent this article via DeepDyve

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Key competencies in sustainability in higher education—toward an agreed-upon reference framework

Teachers’ perception of STEM integration and education: a systematic literature review

A Systematic Review of School Transition Interventions to Improve Mental Health and Wellbeing Outcomes in Children and Young People

Adams, D. (1993). Defining educational quality. improving educational quality project publication no. 1: biennial report . Arlington: Institute for International Research.

Google Scholar  

Ball, S. J. (2003). The teacher’s soul and the terrors of performativity. Journal of Education Policy, 18 (2), 215–228.

Article   Google Scholar  

Barbera, E. (2004). Quality in virtual education environments. British Journal of Educational Technology, 35 (1), 13–20.

Barnett, R. (2012). Learning for an unknown future. Higher Education Research & Development, 31 (1), 65–77.

Barretta, A. M. (2011). A millennium learning goal for education post‐2015: a question of outcomes or processes. Comparative Education, 47 (1), 119–133.

Barrett, A. M., & Tikly, L. (2011). Social justice, capabilities and the quality of education in low income countries. International Journal of Educational Development, 31 (1), 3–14.

Barrett, A. M., Chawla-Duggan, R., Lowe, J., Nikel, J., & Ukpo, E. (2006). The concept of quality in education: review of the ‘international’ literature on the concept of quality in education working paper no. 3 . Bristol: EduQual.

Beeby, C. E. (1966). The quality of education in developing countries . Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.

Book   Google Scholar  

Benavot, A. (2012). Policies toward quality education and student learning: constructing a critical perspective. Innovation: The European Journal of Social Science Research, 25 (1), 67–77.

Bentley, T. (2006). Can we be more creative in thinking about how to scale up educational innovation? Journal of Educational Change, 7 (4), 339–344.

Brown, P., & Tannock, S. (2009). Education, meritocracy and the global war for talent. Journal of Education Policy, 24 (4), 377–392.

Chenail, R. J., 1995. Presenting Qualitative Data. The Qualitative Report , 2 (3), http://www.nova.edu/ssss/QR/QR2-3/presenting.html , January 1, 2008.

Chua, J. S. M. (2009). Saving the teacher’s soul: exorcising the terrors of performativity. London Review of Education, 7 (2), 159–167.

Constas, M. A. (1992). Qualitative analysis as a public event: the documentation of category development procedures. American Educational Research Journal, 29 (2), 253–266.

Crossley, M. (1999). Reconceptualising comparative and international education. Compare, 29 (3), 249–267.

Crossley, M. (2000). Bridging cultures and traditions in the reconceptualisation of comparative and international education. Comparative Education, 36 (3), 319–332.

Delors, J., et al. (1996). Learning: the treasure within . Paris: UNESCO.

Drucker, P. F. (1993). Post-capitalist society . New York: Harper Business.

Drucker, P. F. (2000). Knowledge work. Executive Excellence, 17 (4), 11–12.

Florida, R. (2005). The flight of the creative class . New York: Harper Business.

Goddard, R. D., Hoy, W. K., & Hoy, A. W. (2000). Collective teacher efficacy: its meaning, measure, and impact on student achievement. American Educational Research Journal, 37 (2), 479–507.

Gunter, H., & Rutherford, D. (2000). Professional development for subject leaders: needs, training and impact. Management in Education, 14 (1), 28–30.

Hallinger, P. (2011). Leadership for learning: lessons from 40 years of empirical research. Journal of Educational Administration, 49 (2), 25–142.

Hargreaves, A., & Shirley, D. (2009). The fourth way: the inspiring future for educational change . Thousand Oaks: Corwin Press.

Harris, A. (2011). Distributed leadership: current evidence and future directions. Journal of Management Development, 30 (10), 20–32.

Heng, S. K., 2012. Speech by Mr Heng Swee Keat, Minister for Education, at the MOE Work Plan Seminar 2012, at the Ngee Ann Polytechnic Convention Centre, Singapore, 12 September, http://www.moe.gov.sg/media/speeches/2012/09/12/keynote-address-by-mr-heng-swee-keat-at-wps-2012.php , June 4, 2013.

Heng, S. K., 2014. Speech by Mr Heng Swee Keat, Minister for Education, at the MOE Work Plan Seminar 2014, at the Ngee Ann Polytechnic Convention Centre, Singapore, 23 September, http://www.moe.gov.sg/media/speeches/2014/09/23/keynote-address-by-mr-heng-swee-keat-at-the-ministry-of-education-work-plan-seminar-2014.php , September 23, 2014.

Hoffman, D. M. (1999). Culture and comparative education: toward decentering and recentering the discourse. Comparative Education Review, 43 (4), 464–488.

IIEP-UNESCO. (2011). External quality assurance: options for higher education managers. module 4 understanding and assessing quality . Paris: International Institute of Educational Planning (UNESCO).

Irons, E. J., & Harris, S. (2006). The challenges of no child left behind: understanding the issues of excellence, accountability, and choice . Lanham, Maryland: Rowman and Littlefield Education.

James, M., & Pollard, A. (2011). TLRP’s ten principles for effective pedagogy: rationale, development, evidence, argument and impact. Research Papers in Education, 26 (3), 275–328.

Klees, S. J. (2002). World bank education policy: new rhetoric, old ideology. International Journal of Educational Development, 22 (5), 451–474.

Lee, H. L., 2010. Speech by Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong at the Pre-University Seminar, at the University Cultural Centre, National University of Singapore, 1 June, http://www.pmo.gov.sg/content/pmosite/mediacentre/speechesninterviews/primeminister/2010/June/speech_by_mr_leehsienloongprimeministeratthepre-universitysemina.html#.VHqOxyEZ5eU , June 1, 2014

Leithwood, K., Patten, S., & Jantzi, D. (2010). Testing a conception of how school leadership influences student learning. Educational Administration Quarterly, 46 (5), 671–706.

MacNeil, A. J., Prater, D. L., & Busch, S. (2009). The effects of school culture and climate on student achievement. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 12 (1), 73–84.

Martin, A. J. (2008). Enhancing student motivation and engagement: the effects of a multidimensional intervention. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 33 (2), 239–269.

Ng, P. T. (2003). The Singapore school and the school excellence model. Educational Research for Policy and Practice, 2 (1), 27–39.

Ng, P. T. (2008a). Educational reform in Singapore: from quantity to quality. Educational Research for Policy and Practice, 7 (1), 5–15.

Ng, P. T. (2008b). Quality assurance in the Singapore education system: phases and paradoxes. Quality Assurance in Education, 16 (2), 112–125.

Ng, P. T. (2010). The evolution and nature of school accountability in the Singapore education system. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability, 22 (4), 275–292.

Ng, P. T. (2013a). An examination of school accountability from the perspectives of school leaders in Singapore. Educational Research for Policy and Practice, 12 (2), 121–131.

Ng, P. T. (2013b). An examination of lifelong learning policy rhetoric and practice in Singapore. International Journal of Lifelong Education, 32 (3), 318–334.

Norman, A. D. (2010). Assessing accomplished teaching: good strides, great challenges. Theory Into Practice, 49 (3), 203–212.

Perry, T., Moses, R. P., Cortes, E., Jr., Delpit, L., & Wynne, J. T. (2010). Quality education as a constitutional right: creating a grassroots movement to transform public schools . Boston: Beacon.

Pintrich, P. R., & Schunk, D. H. (2002). Motivation in education: theory research, and applications . Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Priestley, M., Edwards, R., Priestley, A., & Miller, K. (2012). Teacher agency in curriculum making: agents of change and spaces for manoeuvre. Curriculum Inquiry, 42 (2), 191–214.

Reich, R. (1991). The work of nations . New York: Vintage.

Richardson, J. (2009). ‘Quality Education Is Our Moon Shot’: An Interview with Secretary of Education Arne Duncan. Phi Delta Kappan, 91 (1), 24–29.

Rinehart, G. (1993). Quality education: applying the philosophy of Dr. W. Edwards Deming to transform the educational system . Wisconsin: ASQC Quality Press.

Ryan, R., & Deci, E. (2000). Self determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development and well-being. American Psychologist, 55 (1), 68–78.

Schleicher, A., & Stewart, V. (2008). Learning from world-class schools. Educational Leadership, 66 (2), 44–51.

Schmoker, M., & Wilson, R. B. (1993). Transforming schools through total quality education. The Phi Delta Kappan, 74 (5), 389–395.

Schweisfurth, M. M. (2013). Learner-centred education in international perspective: whose pedagogy for whose development? New York: Routledge.

Scrabec, Q., Jr. (2000). Viewpoint: a quality education is not customer driven. Journal of Education for Business, 75 (5), 298–300.

Sergiovanni, T. J. (2001). Leadership: what’s in it for schools? London: RoutledgeFalmer.

Sim, J. B. Y., & Ho, L. C. (2010). Transmitting social and national values through education in Singapore: tensions in a globalized era. In T. Lovat, R. Toomey, & N. Clement (Eds.), International research handbook on values education and student wellbeing (pp. 897–917). Netherlands: Springer.

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Sim, J. B. Y., & Print, M. (2009). The state, teachers and citizenship education in Singapore schools. British Journal of Educational Studies, 57 (4), 380–399.

Smith, E. (2005). Raising standards in American schools: the case of No Child Left Behind. Journal of Education Policy, 20 (4), 507–524.

Soudien, C. (2011). Building quality in education: are international standards helpful? Contemporary Education Dialogue, 8 (2), 183–201.

Spillane, J. (2005). Distributed leadership. The Educational Forum, 69 (2), 143–150.

Stronge, J. H., Ward, T. J., & Grant, L. W. (2011). What makes good teachers good? A cross-case analysis of the connection between teacher effectiveness and student achievement. Journal of Teacher Education, 62 (4), 339–355.

Tan, C. (2008). Globalisation, the Singapore state and educational reforms: towards performativity. Education, Knowledge and Economy, 2 (2), 111–120.

Tikly, L. (2011). Towards a framework for researching the quality of education in low-income countries. Comparative Education, 47 (1), 1–23.

Tharman, S., 2005. Achieving quality: bottom up initiative, top down support . Speech by Mr Tharman Shanmugaratnam, Minister for Education, at the 2005 MOE Work Plan Seminar at the Ngee Ann Polytechnic Convention Centre, Singapore, September 22, http://www.moe.gov.sg/media/speeches/2005/sp20050922.htm , June 4, 2013.

Tschannen-Moran, M., Hoy, A. W., & Hoy, W. K. (1998). Teacher efficacy: its meaning and measure. Review of Educational Research, 68 (2), 202–248.

UNESCO. (2005). Education for All (EFA) Global Monitoring Report 2005: the quality imperative . Paris: UNESCO.

UNICEF. (2000). A paper presented by UNICEF at the meeting of The International Working Group on Education Florence, Italy, June, 2000 . New York: UNICEF Working Paper Series. Defining Quality in Education.

Westera, W. (1999). Paradoxes in open, networked learning environments: towards a paradigm shift. Educational Technology, 39 (1), 17–23.

Wiseman, A. W. (2013). Policy responses to PISA in comparative perspective. In H. Meyer & A. Benavot (Eds.), PISA, Power, and Policy (pp. 303–322). Oxford, UK: The Emergence of Global Educational Governance. Symposium Books.

Zhao, Y. (2005). Increasing math and science achievement: the best and worst of the East and West. Phi Delta Kappan, 87 (3), 219–222.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Policy and Leadership Studies Academic Group, National Institute of Education, Nanyang Technological University, 1, Nanyang Walk, Singapore, 637616, Republic of Singapore

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Pak Tee Ng .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Ng, P.T. What is quality education? How can it be achieved? The perspectives of school middle leaders in Singapore. Educ Asse Eval Acc 27 , 307–322 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11092-015-9223-8

Download citation

Received : 03 July 2014

Accepted : 01 June 2015

Published : 12 June 2015

Issue Date : November 2015

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s11092-015-9223-8

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• School leadership
• Middle leaders
• Quality education
• Learning environment
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

• Sustainable Finance
• AI & Machine Learning
• Biodiversity
• Climate Change
• Circular Economy
• Architecture & Design
• Entertainment
• Fashion & Lifestyle
• Food and Agriculture
• Politics & Foreign Affairs
• Philanthropy
• SDGs Series
• San Francisco
• Shape Your Future
• Global Leaders
• Write for Impakter
• Privacy Policy

The Challenge of ‘Quality Education’

As the 8 Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) have given way to the 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), ambition for education has risen from a desire to achieve universal free primary education (MDG 2) to the need to provide a quality education for all age groups across the world (SDG 4).

Despite a target date of 2030 for SDG 4, the latest projections suggest that universal education will not be achieved until after 2084 . Whilst some commentators focus on the lack of funding and others focus on the lack of data , it seems to me that there are far more fundamental theoretical issues that need to be addressed.

IN THE PHOTO:  Rory teaching a girl in Basroch .  PHOTO  CREDIT:  Edlumino

What do we mean by ‘quality education’.

SDG 4 expresses a commitment to provide Quality Education. However, the Framework for the implementation of SDG 4 , is ambiguous on what a quality education is supposed to look like. Although the word quality appears repeatedly in instructions, it almost invariably features in injunctions to achieve it, rather than in explanations of what it is supposed to mean.

A lack of prescription is understandable and even commendable. Very contrasting high performing educational systems of Nordic and Asian countries show that very different approaches can both count as constituting ‘quality’. However, the lack of prescription is in danger of becoming a lack of precision and thereby leading to confusion about what educational aid should look like.

As a mainstream teacher and head teacher for 25 years, I have been very surprised by some of what I see funded as examples of ‘quality’ educational aid. I have seen youth club activities called ‘education’ in order to be eligible for educational aid funding. I have seen ‘education’ which fails to meet the most basic requirements for special needs children. I have even seen educational aid projects judged as ‘good’ even though the ‘rate of learning’ of the pupils in those educational aid programmes would be considered unacceptably poor in many mainstream schools.

One of the root causes of this problem is that there is a lack of clarity about what constitutes ‘quality’ education. In a world where there is a growing number of ways of making comparisons between education systems (such as the OECD Pisa  system) this is an entirely avoidable problem.

One of the root causes of this problem is that there is a lack of clarity about what constitutes ‘quality’ education.

If clarity about ‘quality’ were properly prioritised, then it should be relatively straightforward to create an international ‘kitemark’ to ensure that providers and recipients meet minimum standards. Without this, there is a very serious risk that limited donor aid is not being employed in the most effective way. It is impossible to monitor and evaluate a commitment to ‘quality’ education when there is no shared understanding of what ‘quality’ means.

In the Photo: Mural Outside a School in Kurdistan. Photo Credit: Edlumino

Are we really deploying the most effective tactics to achieve universal education.

Tacticians broadly distinguish between c onvergent tactics (doing x in order to achieve x) and d ivergent tactics (doing x in order to achieve y). Building schools in order to get more children into education is an instance of convergent tactics to achieve a strategic goal of universal education. Passing a law to make child labour unlawful is a divergent tactic to achieve the same strategic end.

At the moment, educational aid tactics for achieving SDG 4 are generally convergent. Outcomes are largely about incremental growth and scaling up current practices. Primary education is extended by opening more and more primary schools.

However, with the disappointing lack of progress towards achieving SDG 4, perhaps the time has come to consider more divergent tactics.

Following the 2007 McKinsey report ‘ How the world’s best performing schools come out on top ‘ it is now generally recognised that an educational system cannot have a higher output in quality than the quality of its teachers. Therefore, one of the key issues for extending ‘quality education’ is to find a way of more rapidly increasing the supply of quality teachers.

Children who only have a primary school education will not typically be available to the workforce of a developing country for at least 10 years. In most cases, children are left behind without a secondary education to go onto, meaning that there will be considerable educational regression and few will be able to progress into professional roles such as teachers.

One of the key issues for extending ‘quality education’ is to find a way of more rapidly increasing the supply of quality teachers.

Focusing on educating secondary age pupils means that those children will be available to improve the economic and educational impact of a developing country in around 5 years. Compared to primary educational aid, focusing on secondary educational aid halves the time taken for educational aid to have a positive economic impact. This means that educating secondary pupils can speed up the development of professionals within an emerging economy, and lead to a higher numbers of quality teachers that can enter the workforce.

  IN THE PHOTO:  Rory in school in Liniere. PHOTO   CREDIT:  Edlumino

The most effective tactic for extending (long-term) primary education could conceivably be the counter-intuitive (short-term) tactic of focusing on secondary education. Of course, this is not an ‘ideal’ way to run an educational system and it would not work in the long run. However, in the short term, it might just kick-start  a faster rate of improvement towards being able to implement that longer-term ideal model.

Catch-up programmes for children who have missed earlier learning have been successfully implemented and shown positive results in developed countries with failing schools. This means that it is possible for secondary age pupils to make up key elements of a missed primary education. The greater intellectual maturity of teenage pupils means that five years of secondary age education could also conceivably take the children to higher levels than five years of primary education, followed by no education. I have seen this outcome myself in educating refugee girls. Some 15-year-olds had never previously had access to schools, yet they still demonstrated an ability to work successfully and catch up at a greater pace.

The greater intellectual maturity of teenage pupils means that five years of secondary age education could also conceivably take the children to higher levels than five years of primary education, followed by no education.

However, I am asking the question whether this convergent focus makes the best tactical sense in the short term; or whether the time has come to try more divergent tactics?

Is the focus on ‘quantity’ undermining the ability to deliver ‘quality’ education?

At the moment the overwhelming majority of planning, implementation and evaluation of educational aid still revolves around the focus on quantity. Appeals are launched in terms of how many millions of children do not have access to education. Success is reported in terms of the quantities of children who have been provided with education, or how many teachers have attended training events.  Despite the fact that SDG 4 is supposed to be about ‘quality education’ the overwhelming focus of the educational aid industry is still on quantity.

This would be understandable if a focus on quantity delivered quality. But, on the contrary, research projects on school improvement tend to show that a focus on increasing quantitative outcomes (such as exam results) actually undermines the long-term development of quality within a school.

  I N THE PHOTO:  Rory teaching a boy in Basroch .  PHOTO  CREDIT:  Edlumino

So, if what we know from research-driven school improvement tells us that a focus on quantity does not deliver quality, why is the educational aid industry still so heavily focused on quantity?

It may well be because the millennium 15-year focus on MDG 2 was not so explicitly focused on quality. Perhaps there just hasn’t (yet) been a shift in the educational aid industry to consider the different approaches needed for a sharper focus on quality, which is embedded in SDG 4’s targets?

A more explicitly ‘quality’ focused approach would be to reduce the quantities of interventions in order to use resources that improve quality. Rather than opening 20 new schools, for example, it would make more sense to open 15 schools and allocate the remainder of resources to ensuring that those 15 schools have higher quality provision.

In the immediate short term this slows down the rate at which children are brought into education, but it creates stronger, higher quality schools. Those schools can then become the backbone of a truly sustainable local educational system, which is able to train teachers and support regional expansion without needing external support. Over time, this allows a greater numbers of children to become engaged in education of a higher quality than it would be if we simply focused on quantity.  

Are the expectations of educational aid donors just too low?

It is universally accepted that high expectations lead to higher quality classroom outcomes . So, by extension, one of the most fundamental aspects of improving the quality of educational aid should be higher expectations amongst aid donors.

Yet this just does not seem to be taking place. All of the wealthy educational aid donor countries have a clear vision of what ‘quality’ looks like in their own educational systems, yet they seem remarkably content to fund educational provision which they would dismiss as inadequate or unacceptable for their own children.

  IN THE PHOTO:  Rory teaching maths.  PHOTO  CREDIT:  Edlumino

One simple example of this approach can be seen when it comes to classroom sizes. Educational aid donor nations have different approaches to classroom sizes, but broadly speaking pupils will receive a minimum of about 1.5 square metres per pupil. This means that a classroom for 30 pupils will usually be (at least) around 50 square metres.

However, educational aid classrooms are usually very much smaller, often around 35 square metres with desk space for about 30 children. Often, there will be many more children crammed into a classroom and sometimes I have seen more than 50 children in these small classrooms. But it remains the case that conceptually, and theoretically, the classroom is calibrated for around 30 children.  

All of the wealthy educational aid donor countries have a clear vision of what ‘quality’ looks like in their own educational systems, yet they seem remarkably content to fund educational provision which they would dismiss as inadequate or unacceptable for their own children.

So, there seem to be two fundamentally different standards at work for education. There is the ‘large’ classroom standard enforced by educational aid donors as a minimum acceptable standard for their own children. Then there is a ‘small’ classroom size which is deemed good enough for recipients of educational aid.

The difference in size is extremely important because the physical constraints impact upon pedagogy. When the classroom is very small, it is difficult to re-arrange desks for group work or class discussions. It is difficult for a teacher to circulate around a room looking at individual work and giving individual feedback to special needs pupils. When there is only enough room for the teacher to stand at the front and write on the board, this canonises education so that it consists of pupils copying off a board.

  IN THE PHOTO:  School in Liniere.  PHOTO  CREDIT:  Edlumino

This ‘copy off the board’ model of education would be considered unacceptably poor in the educational aid donor nations, as teachers are expected to deploy a range of classroom strategies in order to build creativity and pupil engagement. Yet ‘copying off the board’ is effectively being enforced as the norm for educational aid recipients because the educational aid classrooms are so small that it becomes difficult to teach in any other way.

This is not fair. It may have once been the case that some educational aid recipient nations preferred and prioritised ‘copy off the board’ pedagogy. But there are now groups of local teachers in who want to read international research and who want to try different approaches in their classrooms. However, they struggle to implement the good practice which they are studying, because the dimensions of their classrooms are just too restrictive.

This issue of classroom dimensions is quite blatantly an issue of double standards and a case of educational aid donors having much lower expectations for the teachers and children in recipient nations. What it leads to is an outcome where wealthy western children are given privileged access to a range of teaching styles in their own larger classrooms, which are denied to poorer children receiving educational aid, because their classrooms are built to smaller specifications.

  IN THE PHOTO:  Rory at school in Liniere.  PHOTO  CREDIT: Charles Habib for   Edlumino

SDG 4 represents a challenge, but the challenge is much greater than is generally appreciated. There is most definitely a need for greater funding, and a clear visible crisis consisting of millions of children who cannot get access to education. But there is also a much less recognised set of underlying problems of understanding and comprehension for the educational aid industry. Those are the less visible problems and are just as significant as the highly visible financial ones.

Unless the educational aid industry can raise its expectations for recipients, unless it can sharpen its understanding of what ‘quality education’ means and deploy the most effective tactics to achieve it, then there is a very serious risk that no amount of resources will ever enable SDG 4 to be achieved.

EDITOR’S NOTE:  THE OPINIONS EXPRESSED HERE BY IMPAKTER.COM COLUMNISTS ARE THEIR OWN, NOT THOSE OF IMPAKTER.COM

Blue movement: an interview with brian linton, the world number one killer: non-communicable diseases.

Dr. Rory Fox - CEO of Edlumino Education Aid

Rory Fox is an educationalist who has been in educational leadership for over 25 years. During his career he has worked extensively in teacher training, curriculum design, opening schools and improving failing ones. He has led education initiatives in prison, private and state schools, most recently as an executive headteacher. Rory is CEO of edu-charity Edlumino Education Aid, currently working in refugee camps across Europe to provide qualified teachers for refugee children. Edlumino specialises in the education of children and educational leaders and managers to help other NGO’s develop the educational aspects of services which they are providing to children.

Related Posts

Climate Change Poses Dire Health and Human Rights Risks

To Restore Trust in Science, We Need Great Storytellers

Worsening Hunger Grips West and Central Africa Amid Persistent Conflict and Economic Turmoil

Recent News

EU to Require Companies to Mitigate Negative Impact on Human Rights and Environment

Acute Hunger: 1 in 5 People in Need of Critical Urgent Action

Impakter informs you through the eco news site and empowers your sustainable lifestyle with its eco products marketplace.

Registered Office Address

32 Lots Road, London SW10 0QJ, United Kingdom

IMPAKTER Limited

Company number: 10806931

Impakter is a publication that is identified by the following  International Standard Serial Number  (ISSN) is the following 2515-9569 (Printed) and 2515-9577 (online – Website).

Office Hours - Monday to Friday

9.30am - 5.00pm CEST

stories [at] impakter.com

By Audience

• AI & MACHINE LEARNING
• Architecture & Design
• Editorial Series

ESG/Finance Daily

Impakter platforms.

© 2024 IMPAKTER. All rights reserved.

Ten Factorial Rocks

20 Places in America Where Public Schools Are in Crisis

Posted: April 25, 2024 | Last updated: April 25, 2024

Public schools across the United States face significant challenges impacting the quality of education students receive. The crisis in these institutions is often rooted in underfunding, poor infrastructure, high teacher turnover, and socioeconomic struggles that affect both students and their communities. This article explores 20 specific locations where these crises are particularly acute.

Detroit, Michigan

Detroit’s public schools are in rough shape, from busted heaters to old textbooks. They’re chronically underfunded, so basic educational tools aren’t there. The city’s steep poverty rates don’t help, putting academic success even further out of reach for students. As of January 2024, Mayor Mike Duggan’s probe revealed that all 97 DPS buildings had violations, including broken windows, mold, and various safety risks. This paints a grim picture of the challenges facing the district’s schools.

Baltimore, Maryland

Baltimore’s public schools are in a tough spot, grappling with low graduation rates and frequent absenteeism. They’re often packed too tight and don’t have enough resources, which drags down the quality of education. Adding to the struggle is a significant shortage of teachers driven by harsh working conditions and lousy pay. In fact, a 2023 national survey highlighted that 73% of school districts are short on teachers.

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

Public schools in Philadelphia are also really struggling. Many school buildings are falling apart, and getting the necessary resources for teachers and students feels like a constant uphill battle. Plus, the district has one of the highest teacher turnover rates nationwide. A recent report from Billy Penn and the Logan Center pointed out that nearly 40% of Philly schools were marked “unsatisfactory,” suffering from things like outdated facilities and poor ventilation.

Fresno, California

In Fresno, students are hitting educational roadblocks due to language gaps and economic struggles. The schools just don’t have what they need to support English Language Learners, who make up a big chunk of the student body. Fresno County isn’t flush with cash either—over 23% of its residents are scraping below the poverty line. This financial strain only makes it more challenging for students, both ELL and otherwise, to succeed in their educational pursuits.

New Orleans, Louisiana

Since Hurricane Katrina, New Orleans has been wrestling with its public education system. The big pivot to charter schools has led to a real mixed bag in terms of educational quality. Some kids are doing great, while others are getting left behind, thanks to spotty funding and support. In fact, the post-Katrina landscape has pushed over 90% of public school students into charter schools.

St. Louis, Missouri

St. Louis public schools are in a difficult spot due to high dropout rates and underwhelming academic performance. The situation is made worse by stark racial disparities and economic divides that block many students from accessing decent education. The sad reality is that St. Louis Public Schools (SLPS) have a graduation rate of only about 68%, well below the national average, and their test scores, especially in math, also lag behind state averages.

Cleveland, Ohio

With some of the lowest standardized test scores in the nation, Cleveland’s public schools really have it rough. Students in the Cleveland Metropolitan School District (CMSD) just aren’t hitting the mark on state assessments in reading and math, scoring well below the state average. On top of that, Cleveland’s grappling with a high poverty rate—over 28%, almost double the national average. This economic hardship doesn’t just hurt; it directly impacts kids’ attendance and their ability to do well in school.

Memphis, Tennessee

Memphis schools are really feeling the pinch, thanks to chronic underfunding that leaves them with rundown facilities and scant educational materials. It’s hard enough that many students come from low-income backgrounds, but it gets even tougher when you hear that Memphis Shelby County Schools (MSCS) gets less cash per student than the state average. This funding shortfall tightens the belt on resources, making it even harder for schools to provide what kids need to learn and grow.

Las Vegas, Nevada

Las Vegas is booming, but its public schools can’t keep up, leading to jam-packed classrooms and stretched-thin resources. Teachers are swamped, and naturally, the quality of education is taking a hit. The Clark County School District (CCSD) covers Las Vegas and is scrambling to manage its surging student numbers. According to a 2023 report from the Nevada Auditor’s Office, some schools in the district are bursting at the seams, operating at more than 120% capacity and way over the recommended class sizes.

Stockton, California

Battling through high crime rates and deep poverty in the neighborhood, Stockton’s public schools are up against it. This creates a tense environment that’s tough on both students and teachers, and you can bet it hits educational outcomes hard. It’s a vicious cycle because students living in these high-stress areas often perform worse on standardized tests, as per the National Bureau of Economic Research.

Albuquerque, New Mexico

Albuquerque’s public schools are in a tight spot, dealing with scarce funding and a serious truancy problem. With limited resources and little support for students from lower-income families, it’s no wonder academic performance takes a hit. New Mexico’s not exactly breaking the bank for education either; they’re lagging in per-pupil spending. According to a 2023 National Center for Education Statistics report, the state’s kicking in nearly $10K less per student than the national average. That’s a big gap to bridge.

Wichita, Kansas

In Wichita, the repercussions of budget cuts are hitting hard, with classrooms bulging and resources dwindling for both students and teachers. The district’s plans to trim staff through attrition are set to make matters worse, potentially pushing student-to-teacher ratios over 25:1 in some schools—higher than the national average. The direct impact on education quality is clear: larger class sizes mean less individualized instruction and support.

Charleston, West Virginia

Charleston’s schools are facing some serious roadblocks—economic stagnation and a troubling surge in opioid addiction rates. These factors weigh heavily on student involvement and academic achievements. Despite a slight uptick in Charleston’s economic activity, wages haven’t kept up with the rising cost of living. According to a 2023 report by the Charleston Regional Alliance for Jobs (CRAJ), the average wage in Charleston still lags behind the national average, even as housing expenses continue to climb.

Birmingham, Alabama

Shadows of segregation and inequality are evident in the stark divide in resource allocation, especially impacting predominantly African American neighborhoods in Birmingham. The segregation persists; according to a 2023 report by EdBuild, Birmingham’s school district ranks among the most segregated urban systems nationwide. Shockingly, Black students find themselves in schools that are over 90% Black, highlighting the ongoing challenges of racial disparities in education.

Milwaukee, Wisconsin

Another place marked by troubling levels of segregation and stark racial gaps in academic performance is Milwaukee. This divide is worsened by the chronic lack of funding and resources. The strain is real—Milwaukee Public Schools (MPS) struggles to meet its students’ needs. In fact, a 2023 study by the Wisconsin Budget Project revealed that MPS gets less funding per student compared to the suburban districts nearby. It’s a tough pill to swallow, highlighting the uphill battle for equitable education in the city.

Atlanta, Georgia

Atlanta’s public schools faced hurdles stemming from steep poverty rates and glaring disparities in funding between different districts. This creates a glaring gap in educational standards across the city. Adding fuel to the fire is Georgia’s state funding formulas are worsening these inequalities. According to a 2023 report by the Georgia Budget and Policy Institute (GBPI), high-poverty districts like APS end up with less state funding per student compared to their wealthier suburban counterparts.

Tucson, Arizona

In Tucson, public schools are stretched thin, grappling with oversized classes and scarce resources. Compounding the issue, a significant portion of students hail from economically disadvantaged backgrounds, adding another layer of difficulty for educators. The city’s poverty rate, as reported by the U.S. Census Bureau, underscores the economic hurdles facing many families in the district. It’s a rough reality that impacts not just students’ education but their overall well-being.

Bridgeport, Connecticut

Alarming dropout rates plagued Bridgeport, ranking among the highest in Connecticut. Also, underfunded schools here often leave students lacking crucial academic support—the funding gap is glaring. A 2023 report by the Connecticut Coalition for Justice in Education (CCJE) sheds light on the state’s funding formula, which puts low-income districts at a disadvantage.

Flint, Michigan

The public health crisis in Flint has had a profound impact on its public schools, specifically its water crisis. Concerns over water quality have rightfully taken center stage, diverting attention from educational priorities as both students and staff face health worries. The crisis has even taken its toll on teacher morale, with a 2018 University of Michigan study revealing widespread stress and overwhelm among Flint educators.

Jackson, Mississippi

Jackson’s public schools are stuck in a rut of underachievement, worsened by Mississippi’s broader economic struggles. The chronic lack of investment in education stifles students’ academic potential. Mississippi’s economic woes are glaring; it ranks among the lowest in GDP per capita nationwide. According to a 2023 report by the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA), Mississippi’s GDP per capita lags nearly 20% behind the national average.

More for You

Trump campaign accused of breaking federal law by hiding millions in legal payments

Megan Fox Signs With UTA

19 Things People Treat As Safe That Actually Are Pretty Dangerous

America's most popular small dog breed isn't a chihuahua, according to data. See the top 30.

How Much Beer You'd Have To Drink To Equal A Single Shot Of Liquor

Ranking the 21 'American Idol' winners

Average US annual salary by age revealed – see how you compare

Baking Soda Makes a Great DIY Weed Killer—Here's How to Use It

I’m a Bank Teller: 3 Times You Should Never Ask For $100 Bills at the Bank

The best college on the East Coast is not Harvard, according to data. See the top 50.

19 Things That Will Happen When You Stop Drinking Alcohol

Scientists have discovered the maximum age a human can live to

How Do I Know If My Dog Is Happy? 12 Signs of a Happy Dog

"GMA" Fans Congratulate Robin Roberts as She Announces Major Career Achievement

Russian Defense Ministry shaken by most notable scandal in 10 years

Want the Max $4,873 Social Security Benefit? Here's the Salary You Need.

30 food items that you might not know are banned in America

Tech trick: How to tell who’s calling when you don’t recognize the phone number

The best karaoke songs from the 2020s

What is the healthiest coffee creamer? A dietitian shares her No. 1 pick

You are using an outdated browser. Please upgrade your browser or activate Google Chrome Frame to improve your experience.

Thanks for signing up as a global citizen. In order to create your account we need you to provide your email address. You can check out our Privacy Policy to see how we safeguard and use the information you provide us with. If your Facebook account does not have an attached e-mail address, you'll need to add that before you can sign up.

This account has been deactivated.

Please contact us at [email protected] if you would like to re-activate your account.

Children living in poverty face many barriers to accessing an education. Some are obvious — like not having a school to go to — while others are more subtle. Like the teacher at the school not having had the training needed to help children learn effectively.

Increasing access to education can improve the overall health and longevity of a society , grow economies , and even combat climate change . Yet in many developing countries, children’s access to education can be limited by numerous factors. Language barriers, gender roles, and reliance on child labor can all stall progress to provide quality education. The world’s most vulnerable children from disadvantaged communities are more likely to miss out on school. This includes young girls and children with disabilities,

Here are 10 of the greatest challenges in global education that the world needs to take action on right now to achieve Global Goal 4 : Quality Education by 2030. 

1. A lack of funding for education

Developing countries can’t rely solely on their own financing for education — there’s also a need for more foreign aid.

Only 20% of aid for education goes to low-income countries, according to the Global Partnership for Education (GPE). But it costs an average of $1.25 a day per child in developing countries to provide 13 years of education.

Read More: How to Get Tickets to Global Citizen Festival 2019 in NYC

If each developing country invested just 15 cents more per child, it could make all the difference. There is currently a $39 billion gap to providing quality education to all children by 2030. GPE encourages developing countries to contribute 20% of their national budget to education, and allocate 45% of it to primary education. 

2. Having no teacher, or having an untrained teacher

Teacher effectiveness has been found to be the most important predictor of student learning. GPE is determined to fight the global teacher crisis at hand. 

There aren't enough teachers to achieve universal primary or secondary education. And many of the teachers that are currently working are untrained. As a result, children aren’t receiving a proper education. There are 130 million children in school who are not learning basic skills like reading, writing and math.  

Lean More: The 2019 Global Citizen Festival in New York

Globally, the UN estimates that 69 million new teachers are required to achieve universal primary and secondary education by 2030. To offer every child primary education, 25.8 million school teachers need to be recruited . Meanwhile, in 1 out of every 3 countries, less than three-quarters of teachers are trained to national standards.

3. No classroom

A child cannot learn without the right environment. Children in many countries in sub-Saharan Africa are often squeezed into overcrowded classrooms, classrooms that are falling apart, or are learning outside.  They also lack textbooks, school supplies, and other tools they need to excel.

In Malawi, for example, there are an average of 130 children per classroom in first grade. It’s not just a lack of classrooms that’s the problem, but also all the basic facilities you would expect a school to have — like running water and toilets. 

Read More: Nigeria Says It Has the Highest Number of Out-of-School Children in the World

In Chad, only 1 in 7 schools has potable water, and just 1 in 4 has a toilet; moreover, only one-third of the toilets that do exist are for girls only — a real disincentive and barrier for girls to come to school.

When girls don’t have access to safe toilets, they are often harassed or attacked when looking for a private place to go. Girls also miss or drop out of school when they begin menstruating if they don’t have the sanitation facilities or sanitary products to manage their periods with pride and dignity.

4. A lack of learning materials

Outdated and worn-out textbooks are often shared by six or more students in many parts of the world. In Tanzania, for example, only 3.5% of all sixth grade pupils had sole use of a reading textbook. In Cameroon, there are 11 primary school students for every reading textbook and 13 for every mathematics textbook in second grade. Workbooks, exercise sheets, readers, and other core materials to help students learn their lessons are in short supply. Teachers also need materials to help prepare their lessons, share with their students, and guide their lessons. 

Read More: Half of All Child Refugees Aren't in School: Why This Is a Massive Problem

5. The exclusion of children with disabilities

Despite the fact that education is a universal human right, being denied access to school is common for the world’s 93 to 150 million children with disabilities. In some of the world’s poorest countries, up to 95% of children with disabilities are out of school.

Students with disabilities have lower attendance rates and are more  likely to be out of school or leave school before completing primary education. They are suspended or expelled at a rate  more than double  the rate of their non-special education peers.

A combination of discrimination, lack of training in inclusive teaching methods among teachers, and a lack of accessible schools leave this group uniquely vulnerable to being denied their right to education.

Read More: 72 Guidelines for Students With Disabilities Have Been Rescinded by the US Dept. of Education

6. Being the ‘wrong’ gender

Put simply, gender is one of the biggest reasons why children are denied an education. Despite recent advances in girls’ education, a generation of young women has been left behind. Over 130 million young women around the world are not currently enrolled in school. One in 3 girls in the developing world marries before the age of 18, and usually leaves school if they do.

Read More: World Leaders Warn Failure to Educate Girls Will Cause 'Catastrophes'

Keeping girls in school benefits them and their families, but poverty forces many families to choose which of their children to send to school. Girls often miss out due to belief that there’s less value in educating a girl than a boy. Instead, they are sent to work, forced into marriage , or made to stay at home to look after siblings and work on household chores. Girls also miss days of school every year or are too embarrassed to participate in class, because they don’t have appropriate menstrual hygiene education or toilet facilities at their school to manage their period.

7. Living in a country in conflict or at risk of conflict

There are many casualties of any war, and education systems are often destroyed. Children exposed to violence are more at risk of under-achieving and dropping out of school. The impact of conflict cannot be overstated. Nearly 250 million children are living in countries affected by conflicts. More than 75 million children and young people aged 3 to 18 are currently in urgent need of educational support in 35 crisis-affected countries,  with young girls 90% more likely to be out of secondary school in conflict areas than elsewhere.

Read More: UN: Nearly 1 Billion Kids Will Be Jobless If Education Aid Stays Flat

Teachers and students often flee their homes during conflicts, and continuity of learning is greatly disrupted. In total, 75 million children have had their education disrupted disrupted by conflict or crisis, including natural disasters that destroy schools and the environment around them. Less than half of the world’s refugee children are enrolled in school, according  to the UN Refugee Agency. Worryingly, education has thus far been a very low priority in humanitarian aid to countries in conflict — and less than 3% of global humanitarian assistance was allocated to education in 2016.

Without support, conflict-affected children lose out on the chance to reach their full potential and rebuild their communities.

8. Distance from home to school

For many children around the world, a walk to school of up to three hours in each direction is not uncommon . This is just too much for many children, particularly children living with a disability, those suffering from malnutrition or illness, or those who are required to work around the household. Imagine having to set off for school, hungry, at 5 a.m. every day, not to return until 7 p.m. Many children, especially girls, are also vulnerable to violence on their long and hazardous journeys to and from school.

9. Hunger and poor nutrition

The impact of hunger on education systems is gravely underreported. Being severely malnourished, to the point it impacts on brain development, can be the same as losing four grades of schooling. It is estimated that around 155 million children under the age of five are estimated to be stunted . Stunting –– impaired growth and development that children experience from poor infection, and inadequate stimulation –– can affect a child’s cognitive abilities as well as their focus and concentration in school. As a result, stunted children are 19% less likely to be able to read by age eight. Conversely, good nutrition can be crucial preparation for good learning.

Read More: Worst Places for Education Around The World

10. The expense of education 

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights makes clear that every child has the right to a free basic education, so that poverty and lack of money should not be a barrier to schooling. In many developing countries, over the last several, decades, governments have announced the abolition of school fees and as a result, they have seen impressive increases in the number of children going to school. 

Read More: Bloomberg Just Donated $1.8 Billion to Help Low-Income Students Afford College

But for many of the poorest families, school remains too expensive and children are forced to stay at home doing chores or work themselves. Families remain locked in a cycle of poverty that goes on for generations. In many countries throughout Africa education is theoretically free. In practice “informal fees” see parents forced to pay for “compulsory items” like uniforms, books, pens, extra lessons, exam fees, or funds to support the school buildings. In other places, the lack of functioning public (government-supported) schools means that parents have no choice but to send their children to private schools. Even if these schools are “low-fee,” they are unaffordable for the poorest families who risk making themselves destitute in their efforts to get their children better lives through education.

The 2019 Global Citizen Festival in New York will be presented by Citi and Cisco and in association with our Production Partner, Live Nation. MSNBC, Comcast NBCUniversal, and iHeart will serve as Presenting Media Partners and will air a live simulcast of the Festival on MSNBC and on iHeart Radio Stations. The Festival will also be livestreamed on YouTube and Twitter, presented by Johnson & Johnson. 

Proud partners of the 2019 Global Citizen Festival include Global Citizen’s global health partner and major partner Johnson & Johnson, and major partners P&G, Verizon, and NYC Parks.

Defeat Poverty

10 Barriers to Education That Children Living in Poverty Face

Aug. 13, 2019

What do we mean by Quality Education?

Back in September 2015, world leaders adopted the 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) , one of which focuses solely on quality education. Goal 4 seeks to ensure inclusive and quality education for all and promote lifelong learning—a goal Wellspring’s work is centred around.

​​For Wellspring, quality education is this and more. Quality education empowers children to be who God created them to be. It places children at the center of their learning and sees them treated with dignity and worth. It sees that each child has God-given potential, and it helps them step into their unique giftings to reach it. Quality education gives every child the opportunity to thrive. It is inclusive , and ensures they every child has the resources, attention, and focus they need to effectively learn. The provision of quality education gives students the space to dream about their future, and the tools to make them come true as a result.

The provision of quality education depends on each member of the education ecosystem playing their unique role—whether a parent helping with homework, a teacher giving a student their one-on-one attention, or a school leader casting vision for their school.

When students access quality education, they’re equipped with the knowledge and character to impact their lives, community and the world.

Other Foundational Pieces

We are sharing these Foundational Pieces to help you learn more about who we are and what we do.

What Are Some of the Current Challenges in Quality Education?

What are Barriers to Girls’ Education?

Why Does Education Matter?

• The Art of Enterprise
• Founder Stories
• The Generalist
• Business Deep Dive
• Brand Story
• Future List
• Content Marketing
• Newsletter Sponsorship
• The Making of Intelligent Machines, Artificial Intelligence, and Rough Edges of… July 4, 2023
• Future Startup Interview: Zareen Mahmud Hosein, Founding Partner, Snehasish Mahmud… March 25, 2023
• Nabila Nowrin: The Design of Our Journey, The Making Of Moar, and The Pain and Pleasure… October 3, 2023

Climate Innovation Challenge: Building A Unique Interdisciplinary Global Program For Climate Education and Innovation

"We are so fortunate, because the three of us believe in the word quality. And we take this seriously." So says Wenda Gumulya, one of the co-founders of the Climate Innovation Challenge (CIC), a unique interdisciplinary education and innovation program that brings together students from around the world to learn about and develop solutions for the climate crisis. Founded along with her two co-founders, Wahid Hossain from Bangladesh and Sherry Xue, a Chinese student based in the US, the CIC has become a pioneering model for climate education and innovation on a global scale.

For the uninitiated, CIC is a six-week virtual climate education and innovation program bringing together diverse young people, project partners, mentors, and stakeholders from across the globe to tackle growing climate change challenges. 

Participants learn from each other through peer feedback sessions and group work, attend workshops on professional and climate skills, and collaborate with organizations developing sustainable solutions and mentors to devise answers to critical ecological problems, gaining hands-on experience.

Earlier this year, from January 4th to February 3rd, CIC concluded its third cohort, with 30 students from 14 countries and 21 esteemed educational institutions. Throughout the program, students engaged in virtual workshops on climate change and critical professional skills and capacity-building sessions conducted by experts from leading institutions such as the UNDP Bangladesh Accelerator Lab and Columbia Climate School . 

They worked with four promising climate-focused organizations from Bangladesh, America, and Germany, operating in sectors like plastic recycling, carbon-trading marketplaces, sustainable e-commerce, and AI-based waste segregation. 

Working collaboratively with dedicated mentors and fellow participants, they developed real-world solutions, deepening their understanding of climate change while gaining valuable professional skills and building lasting connections.

The Origins

The seeds of the CIC were planted in 2020 when Wahid Hossain, a Bangladeshi social entrepreneur working on sustainable fashion, felt a "new motivation to impact Bangladeshi youth" in the wake of COVID-19. He launched several educational programs in collaboration with the U.S. Embassy in Dhaka, including one called "BeyondGrades" which worked with thousands of Bangladeshi students. 

However, Wahid felt the need to connect students not just locally but internationally to accelerate their learning and raise their ambition. "I realized an opportunity for Bangladeshi students to connect with the international community," he says.

In late 2021, he founded PathFinder , a program facilitating cross-cultural exchange and mentorship opportunities. It was through PathFinder that he met Wenda, an Australia-based sustainability practice director at Deloitte who became a mentor. Having worked internationally on social impact focused on education, skills development, ESG, and climate, Wenda saw a gap that needed filling. "I can see from my experience that young people will need to develop more awareness about sustainability, build critical thinking skills, and good business acumen to actually drive positive changes in the future," she says.

Sherry Xue, the founder of Explorate , which empowers individuals to realize their agency and capacity to make a tangible difference in global challenges through making international volunteering more accessible, joined the group around this time. Sherry met Wahid at a Watson Institute event where Wahid, a Watson Institute alum, attended as a speaker. When Wahid shared the idea with Sherry, she was immediately piqued considering her passion for quality education and climate change. 

The trio began discussing and developing an ambitious idea: an immersive, virtual program that would bring students together from across the globe to innovate climate solutions while learning crucial interdisciplinary and cross-cultural skills.

"We haven't seen a program like that so far at that time, that actually married things together like that," explains Wenda. By combining climate education with skills like leadership, design thinking, and perhaps most importantly, the ability to collaborate across cultures and viewpoints, the CIC's thesis was to create a new generation of climate leaders. 

As Wahid describes it, "The initial thought was connecting students and giving them a career choice with the knowledge and experience about climate, agriculture and food security." This was a rare interdisciplinary approach. 

The CIC wanted to overcome the limitation of traditional models where climate knowledge was siloed into environmental science degrees. The CIC team started with a radically interdisciplinary vision, reflecting how the real-world challenges of climate change will require collaborative, innovative solutions across every sector and discipline.

Similarly, the program didn’t want to be a mere classroom experience. Instead, CIC founders sought to create a program that provides experiential education and teaches real-life collaborative problem-solving. CIC achieved this goal by tying in a new component they call project partners. Project partners are sustainability-focused organizations that want to collaborate with students as external consultants and can benefit from such collaborations. 

The model allows students to work with an organization, solve real-world climate change challenges, and gain experiential learning. And for organizations, it is free of cost expertise and contribution that often leads to unforeseen breakthroughs. 

"We see a gap in youth skills," says Wenda. "To actually see real projects, real solutions through the project partners. And this project partner piece is very important.” CIC creates small groups of different students, from different countries, in one group. “We match them with a project partner which is a social enterprise, or a startup or a company who's already doing climate solutions," Wenda adds.  

CIC also has a mentorship component where students work with a dedicated mentor throughout the program who guides them in the process of developing solutions and working as a team. 

The Evolution

From these initial conversations in late 2021, the CIC team wasted no time in launching their first cohort. 

The first prototype cohort began in December 2022 with just 34 students from Bangladesh, the Philippines, Zambia, India, and Sweden. Two more cohorts followed quickly by March and September 2023, with each iteration seeing the program evolve and improve based on lessons learned.

This path to launching the program's first cohort, however, was arduous and didn’t happen at one go. By the time the inaugural cohort materialized, Wahid had attempted and failed thrice to get the program off the ground.  

"After developing the initial concept, we tried to engage a few organizations," Wahid recounts. "The initial model involved students doing direct internships, but those attempts did not pan out. We could not secure any meaningful backing." Following this initial setback, efforts stalled by December 2020. However, Wahid was relentless. The next phase started in September 2021. "I realized the concept was unique and difficult for many Bangladeshi stakeholders to grasp," he says. "So we decided to create a prototype." Around this time, Wahid met Wenda at an Unleash Plus program where she mentored him. They launched their first prototype in December 2022, followed by another program in March. However, they remained unsatisfied with the outcomes. "We were giving students inspirations to do good," he notes, "but they were not acquiring any concrete skills—hard or soft—that they could apply in their lives."

After the first cohort, they went back to the drawing board and spoke with several mentors and advisors. After much deliberation, they eventually decided to narrow down the focus of the program and decided to build a program exclusively on climate. 

"What we had in the first program was really different from what we had in the third program," says Sherry. "We incorporated student feedback, we hopped on calls with experienced people across domains and got their thoughts." 

The curriculum expanded from an initial four workshops to include six core modules by the third cohort, with partnerships formed with institutions like Columbia University's Climate School to deepen the climate education component.

From being limited to working with local Bangladeshi and American startups as project partners initially, the CIC now collaborates with organizations across the globe. It has also shifted its focus exclusively to university students rather than mixing high school and university cohorts that it initially experimented with. 

"We began with limited resources, but our individual experiences prior to forming CIC provided a strong foundation. Each of us brings a wealth of knowledge gained through years of individual endeavors, making our presence here today possible," reflects Wenda.

At its core, the CIC takes a model-flipping approach compared to typical university courses. Broadly speaking, the program stands out on two accounts. On the macro level, it is a bold model that understands the gravity of the challenges at hand. Many people call climate change a ‘wicked problem’ because it doesn’t respond well to traditional remedies. CIC recognizes this and proposes that the most potent weapons against complex challenges lie in embracing fresh perspectives and out-of-the-box interdisciplinary thinking. It does this by bringing together people and organizations from across boundaries and backgrounds and creating a conducive environment for them to collaborate, learn, and solve. 

On the micro level, the delivery of each component of the program—curriculum and classes—is designed in such a manner that it maximizes the learning outcome for students. Everything is participatory, collaborative, and experiential with a deep appreciation for reflective learning. 

As Wahid explains, "We created the workshops and curriculum with many small activities so that students are encouraged and have the chance to do something themselves and explain it to others. So they feel I'm not attending a mere class, I'm co-creating this class."

The six-week program is a series of intensive virtual workshops and project-based collaborative work. Students from diverse backgrounds across the world are placed into small groups matched with real organizations working on climate solutions as project partners. The students then serve as consultants, applying skills from the workshops like system thinking, design thinking, climate basics, and project management to provide insights and recommendations to these partner organizations. 

Each group of students also works with a dedicated mentor, receiving critical feedback and suggestions in the process of creating collaborative solutions. 

A key aspect that makes the CIC unique is its emphasis on interdisciplinary and cross-cultural collaboration. "Climate is not the only aspect you learn and discuss at CIC. Participating in CIC is not the same as taking a subject in university," notes Wenda. "But at CIC, you work with students from different countries, different backgrounds, different fields, to create solutions. There's this element of cultural intelligence which is huge because when you talk about global issues, you need global solutions."

This deliberate crafting of diversity within the small student team, coupled with a focus on skills like communication, leadership, critical thinking, and cultural understanding, makes CIC a potentially transformative experience. "I've seen so many different programs, but CIC delivers quality work and positive impact for the students because we share the same values," says Wenda.

From those initial 34 students just over a year ago, the CIC has grown rapidly to engage nearly 100 alumni after three cohorts. But for its ambitious co-founders, this is just the beginning. The vision is to build the CIC into a globally renowned program that can have a lasting impact on climate education and innovation.

"My vision is to see this program have a large-scale impact, touching five continents, scaling up students little by little," says Wenda. "To see this curriculum solidified and standardized so we can teach other organizations and climate educators that this framework works." 

Expanding the program's reach isn't just about numbers, but ensuring the CIC model can create reinforcing cycles of impact. "We want to continue building up that impact, whether within the participants or working directly with organizations," adds Sherry. "The ultimate goal is to contribute towards climate change through those organizational lenses and local context."

Part of this involves strengthening the CIC's alumni network and nurturing an engaged community of graduates. The program already has a strong alumni and partner network. Past students speak highly of the program and widely recommend it. But CIC aims to take that engagement even further. 

"We've had three cohorts so far, roughly 90 alumni, so we are thinking about how we can engage with them, and how we can take this community forward," says Sherry. 

CIC has largely been a voluntary initiative. All three CIC founders work for free. The program doesn’t pay anything to any of its stakeholders. However, the rapid growth of the program over the last three cohorts is now forcing the founders to find a sustainable model for the initiative so that they can scale the program and reach more people. 

Thus the growth plans are ambitious but strategic. As Wahid acknowledges, "We understand that the way we are growing, we need professional support. We are working with financial models on how to do this because this model worked for our last cohort, but after that we need support staff as it goes to a larger audience." 

Ultimately, the CIC co-founders don't just want to create a successful education program but to have a catalytic impact on climate innovation itself. "We can also teach large businesses how to develop their employee pool to be more sustainable, how to equip their team with the mindset and skills to maximize impact with innovative ideas," says Wahid.  

The Lessons

Of course, launching an ambitious initiative like the CIC across cultures and continents hasn't been easy. Reflecting on the journey so far, CIC founders have learned valuable lessons about entrepreneurship, building ambitious programs, and pushing boundaries.

"The first thing is continuous learning," says Wenda. "The resilience which actually makes us be here today. When we started we had mistakes, but we continuously learned and remained resilient."

The relentless resilience of the CIC team and commitment to quality have been crucial differentiators for CIC in an increasingly crowded landscape of online education programs. "Global partners are actually paying attention, they see this quality and the seriousness of effort," adds Wenda. "That's why they partner with CIC because they know there is mutual benefit."

For Wahid, one of the most inspiring lessons has been seeing student participants go through powerful personal growth and transformation. "There are students who feel demotivated initially, not able to contribute. But when we inspire them and provide direction, we start seeing rapid improvements," he says. "The students who were hardly speaking at the beginning of the program, by the end of the program they speak so much we have to stop them."

He asserts that true leadership isn't about dominance, but creating an empowering environment for others to step up and CIC has been successful in helping build a sense of true leadership in its students. "Those who had a natural ability to lead realized that leadership is also about how we empower someone else to take it," he reflects. "For the sake of group success, they decided to let go of ego."

Sherry's key takeaway has been the importance of taking action and iterating, even amid uncertainty. "Part of prototyping requires you to put something not 100% perfect out there and learn from it," she says. "I can get stuck in my own thoughts, but this team culture and working with Wahid and Wenda has allowed me to act and not be afraid to put something imperfect out there."

For aspiring entrepreneurs, CIC is an interesting case study. From iterating the program after each cohort, trying again and again after initial setbacks to attracting global partners like Columbia University through sheer tenacity and commitment, the CIC's journey is a powerful lesson in entrepreneurial grit. It takes time and hard work to make things happen. But if you continue pushing and pursuing high standards, things are bound to happen. 

A Better Tomorrow is Possible 

As the pillage of climate change increasingly upends lives across the world, from Bangladeshi farmers devastated by flooding and salinity to Australian coastal communities threatened by rising seas, the need for innovative solutions has never been greater. As the climate challenge accelerates in an increasingly interconnected yet fractured world, we need a new group of culturally attuned systems thinkers and innovators. 

The CIC's model of global, cross-cultural, and interdisciplinary collaboration to empower a new generation of climate leaders is perhaps an excellent example of the type of boundary-breaking thinking that we will need to face this existential crisis. An intrinsically ambitious program backed by resourceful, and driven founders who believe in quality and commitment over marketing.

The fight against climate change's wicked threats demands bold new models of climate education and innovation that many traditional institutions have so far failed to offer. 

If this trio, representing a diverse blend of backgrounds and perspectives, can realize their vision to scale globally and solidify their unique model of virtual, collaborative, and interdisciplinary climate education and innovation program, the Climate Innovation Challenge could become an inspiring model for tackling the climate crisis as well as many more wicked challenges our world faces today.  

Cover photo: From top-left, clockwise, Sherry Xue, Wahid Hossain, Wenda Gumulya, three founders of CIC, and Ruhul Kader, Author of this piece.

Continue reading:

In-depth business & tech coverage from Dhaka

Powered by: Probaho

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW article

This article is part of the research topic.

Women and Mental Health in Education and Leadership

Work-life integration among nurse educators: A meta-synthesis Provisionally Accepted

• 1 University of Johannesburg, South Africa

The final, formatted version of the article will be published soon.

Background: Work-life integration has been extensively researched in various contexts.Women dominate the nursing profession, but work-life integration is essential for men and women since both are expected to focus equally on their families and careers. The nursing faculty perceives nurse educators' work environment as undervalued, lacking support, and limited time to grow and carry the heavy workload.Method: A qualitative meta-synthesis of studies between 2013 and 2023 was conducted using ScienceDirect, EBSCO Host, Sage and Sabinet databases. Seven articles related to the research phenomenon were retrieved.The resulting themes revolved around two central aspects: nurse educators' work and life integration. Nurse educators face various challenges with work-life integration and often view their failure as a personal rather than a societal issue. However, as much as achieving work-life integration is personal, there is a call for employers in academic environments to improve workplace policies, like better-paid maternity leave, affordable quality childcare, and social support. Furthermore, nurse educators' line managers should display warmth and encouragement about personal challenges affecting nurse educators.

Keywords: work-life balance, Nurse educator, Systematic review, Faculty (MeSH), nurse academic

Received: 01 Sep 2023; Accepted: 25 Apr 2024.

Copyright: © 2024 Erasmus, Downing and Ntshingila. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY) . The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) or licensor are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

* Correspondence: Prof. Charlene Downing, University of Johannesburg, Johannesburg, 2092, Gauteng, South Africa

People also looked at