Introduction to End-of-Decade Web viewEFA End-of-Decade Note on Quality (Goal 6) for Asia Pacific Region. TABLE OF CONTENTS. 1Introduction to End-of-Decade Notes2. 2Defining Quality:

EFA End-of-Decade Note on Quality (Goal 6) for Asia Pacific Region

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1 Introduction to End-of-Decade Notes...............................................................................................2

2 Defining Quality: Concept and Scope of Review.............................................................................3

2.1 Right to Education, Right to Learning.......................................................................................3

2.2 Scope of Review........................................................................................................................8

3 Progress, Issues and Challenges........................................................................................................9

3.1 Learning Outcomes....................................................................................................................9

3.2 Instructional Time....................................................................................................................22

3.3 Textbooks and Learning Materials...........................................................................................27

3.4 Teachers...................................................................................................................................27

3.5 Assessment systems.................................................................................................................34

4 Priorities and Strategies...................................................................................................................39

1 EDN Goal 6 Working Draft (do not cite)

1 Introduction to End-of-Decade Notes

(common intro)The international community, including Governments and development partners, reaffirmed the commitment to achieve Education for All (EFA) by 2015 at the World Education Forum in Dakar, Senegal in April 2000. The Dakar Framework for Action specifies six goals and 12 strategies to achieve EFA.

With the close of the 2000-2010 decade, there is a need to assess where Asia-Pacific as a region, and where countries in the region stand vis-à-vis the EFA goals. Understanding and sharing the information on how much progress has been achieved during the decade and the main barriers to attaining the goals will help countries in the region identify strategies to accelerate the achievement of the EFA goals.

The End-of-Decade Notes take stock of progress and remaining challenges for each EFA goal thus far. The notes highlight innovative approaches of policy reforms and strategies, especially in view of reducing disparities in education, as well as remaining policy, capacity and finance gaps to achieve EFA and the education-related Millennium Development Goals (MDGs).

The notes build on the findings of the Asia-Pacific EFA Mid-Decade Assessment (2006-2008), which examined EFA progress and gaps at the mid-way point of the 2000-2010 decade. The notes further aim to maintain the momentum, energy and commitment to EFA in the region, including on the focus on “reaching the unreached in education” and “EFA with equity”.


2 Defining Quality: Concept and Scope of Review

2.1 Right to Education, Right to Learning

The role of education in enriching lives of individuals, societies and nations is uncontested. Education helps individuals to learn and develop to their potential, acquiring critical cognitive, social and emotional capacities to make informed choices that matter to his or her dignity and well-being. Better educated people are likely to be more productive in the workplace, adopt healthier lifestyles, and better cope with risks and vulnerabilities. Benefits accrue not only to individuals and families but also to broader societies and nations, decreasing poverty, improving economic growth and promoting responsible citizenship.

In recognition of these values, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) affirmed that “everyone has a right to education,” and education has since been enshrined in numerous international conventions and treaties that followed, including the Convention on the Rights of the Child (1960). The right of every child to education opportunities has fundamental and intrinsic value, as described by Amartya Sen:

“The elimination of ignorance, of illiteracy... and of needless inequalities in opportunities (is) to be seen as objectives that are valued for their own sake. They expand our freedom to lead the lives we have reason to value, and these elementary capabilities are of importance on their own.”

Together, the World Declaration Forum (1990) and the Dakar Framework for Action (2000) for Education For All have contributed to setting the normative frameworks by which governments around the world invested towards fulfilment of children’s right to education. In many ways, substantial progress has been made in education in the Asia Pacific region and globally. More children are entering schools and staying in schools longer, with improved gender parity, particularly in primary level. Transition to secondary schools is also improving, with increasing number of countries expanding definition of basic education to go beyond primary and into secondary level. While challenges still remain, particularly for children disadvantaged by poverty, geographic isolation, ethnicity and language, the remarkable expansion of access is a reflection of sustained political commitments and effective, innovative investments towards access that have been made by governments, civil societies and communities alike.

Despite increased enrolments, however, there is little indication that children are also learning. Data on learning achievement- the few that are available- suggests that average student learning in developing countries in the region is alarmingly low, with many years of schooling failing to yield even basic literacy and numeracy skills. That children’s time spent in schools is not resulting in increased knowledge and skills, both cognitive and non-cognitive, is a strong indication of the perilous state education quality, and the visible patterns of disparities between and within countries suggests that disadvantages are being reproduced, not mitigated, through education.


The relatively limited progress for quality education compared to access is perhaps not surprising, since for many year, efforts to improving quality of education has been shrouded in ambiguity. The overwhelming emphasis of international treaties placed on participation rather than learning was evident as recently as 2000, with the Millennium Development Goals (2000) declaring explicit target of universal primary education and gender parity, without any concern for the qualitative aspects of how education systems should perform. The World Declaration on EFA in Jomtien (1960) had also made only general references to quality, noting that quality of education needed to be improved to enhance relevance and equity in education. The lack of clear standards and targets for quality was a clear reflection of priorities placed on expanding access and resulted in the proliferation of policies that mainly aimed to remove barriers to access. Indeed, in the earlier years of EFA movement, financing gap, infrastructure and other input-based policies have dominated debates on education, and innovations have also focused on many demand-side initiatives, such as abolition of schools fees and targeted scholarships, that did not place learning outcomes as central objectives.1

In 2000, the Dakar Framework for Action helped advance the importance of quality, and it is widely recognized that quality of education is at the heart of education and integral to achieving EFA commitments. Under Goal 6, the Framework calls for attention to “improving all aspects of the quality of education, and ensuring excellence of all so that recognized and measurable learning outcomes are achieved by all, especially in literacy, numeracy and essential life skills.” As seen in Box 1, the expanded definition of quality education is provided, including the desirable characteristics of learners, processes, content and systems.

Concept and framework of quality

1 The only demand-side program that increased learning outcomes was a Kenyan scholarship program that directly related incentives to learning. See Kremer, M. , Miguel and Thorton. (2009). “Incentives to Learn.” Review of Economics and Statistics 91, No. 3: 437-456

Box 1: Dakar Framework for Action on Quality of Education

Governments and all other EFA partners must work together to ensure basic education of quality for all, regardless of gender, wealth, location, language or ethnic origin. Successful education programmes require: (1) healthy, well-nourished and motivated students; (2) well trained teachers and active learning techniques; (3) adequate facilities and learning materials; (4) a relevant curriculum that can be taught and learned in a local language and builds upon the knowledge and experience of the teachers and learners; (5) an environment that not only encourages learning but is welcoming, gender-sensitive, healthy and safe; (6) a clear definition and accurate assessment of learning outcomes, including knowledge, skills, attitudes and values; (7) participatory governance and management; and (8) respect for and engagement with local communities and cultures.


Despite the increased consensus about the importance of quality education, however, the concept of quality is far from universal and continues to remain a great source of debate. Indeed, the wide range of concepts and standards associated with quality education reflects the diversity in the perceived purpose and objectives of education itself. Nevertheless, the 2005 EFA Global Monitoring Report, The Quality Imperative, identified at least two key elements of quality that are commonly observed in the range of quality formulations in education literature. The two elements- cognitive development and social and emotional development- are considered important aims of education systems, and two of the most well-known definitions of quality education, presented by UNESCO and the Convention on the Rights of the Child, are elaborations based on these two quality elements (see Box 2).

Globally and in the region, greater efforts are now being taken to measure learning outcomes as the ultimate indicator of education quality, as evidenced by increased interest in international assessments like PISA, PIRLS and TIMMS, as well as in various national learning assessments. Efforts to measure non-academic attributes, like values, attitudes, and emotional development, are gradually increasing, although the considerable difficulty in measurement remains a major challenge. In the absence of learning assessments that provide appropriate measures of education outcomes, other indicators such as Survival to Grade 5, Pupil-Teacher Ratio, and Completion rate are also being used as proxies- albeit limited- for learning.2

2 These indicators are most often recognized core EFA indicators for Goal 6 and were used in the Mid-Decade Assessment of EFA in the Asia Pacific.

Box 2: Quality as defined by UNESCO and CRC

UNESCO’s conceptualization of quality is based on the four pillars as provided in Learning: The Treasure Within, Report to UNESCO of the International Commission on Education for the Twenty-first Century:

a) Learning to know acknowledges that learners build their own knowledge daily, combining indigenous and ‘external’ elements.

b) Learning to do focuses on the practical application of what is learned.c) Learning to live together addresses the critical skills for a life free from discrimination, where all have equal

opportunity to develop themselves, their families and their communities.d) Learning to be emphasizes the skills needed for individuals to develop their full potential.

****************

In the CRC, Article 29 (1), the State Parties agree that the education of the child shall be directed to:

(a) The development of the child’s personality, talents and mental and physical abilities to their fullest potential;(b) The development of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms, and for the principles enshrined in the

Charter of the United Nations;(c) The development of respect for the child’s parents, his or her own cultural identity, language and values, for the

national values of the country in which the child is living, the country from which he or she may originate, and for civilizations different from his or her own;

(d) The preparation of the child for responsible life in a free society, in the spirit of understanding, peace, tolerance, equality of sexes, and friendship among all peoples, ethnic, national and religious groups and persons of indigenous origin;

(e) The development of respect for the natural environment.


There is also growing body of knowledge on the various dimensions and processes that interact to produce the desired education outcomes. As such, a diverse range of frameworks for quality exists in education literature, and although details may vary, they can be traced back to two main influential discourses: human capital approach and rights-based approaches. Frameworks based on the human capital theory usually emphasize linear “input-process-outcome” models, which accounts for human and resource inputs acting on processes to produce outcomes. “Input-process-outcome” models are widely used by educational economists and serves as the basis for the large body of studies on education production functions, which aim to identify the most effective deployment and use of inputs for quality outputs. 3 Some of the most common quality frameworks are derived from the input-process-output model, including the 2005 EFA GMR Framework for quality, which expands on the model to include dimensions of learner characteristics and context (see Figure 1). By presenting the complexities of interactions within education systems in an efficient manner, this framework can be a useful starting point of analyzing the key building blocks of quality education. It is important to note, however, that relationships among inputs and processes- or, in the framework, “enabling inputs”- and outcomes are not linear in practice, but rather, multi-directional and strongly influenced by context.

Figure 1: Framework for Understanding Education Quality (Source: UNESCO EFA GMR 2005)

In contrast to the human capital approach, the human rights approach emphasizes rights to education, rights in education and rights through education in equal magnitude. Rights-based frameworks not only necessitate the active elimination of all barriers to opportunities to learning, but also note that learning experience itself has intrinsic worth and should promote child rights. Most notable of the rights-based approach to monitoring quality education is the Child Friendly Schools Framework that explains quality to be resting on five key dimensions, 3 Barrett, A.M. and L. Tikly. 2009. Education Quality: Research Priorities and Approaches in the Global Era. Changing Education Landscapes. D. Mattheu, Springer Netherlands: 185-206.


including learners, environments, content, processes and outcomes, and founded on the “rights of the whole child, and all children, to survival, protection, development and participation.”4 In the Asia Pacific region, the framework was later expanded to include a sixth dimension of systems and policies at the regional Save the Children-UNICEF-UNESCO workshop in Pattaya, Thailand in 2005 (see Figure 2). Compared to the “input-process-outcome” models, the CFS Framework provides a comprehensive understanding of quality and, perhaps more importantly, an integral approach to recognizing the diversity of learners and the contextual influences.

Figure 1: Child Friendly Schools Framework (Source: UNICEF, 2005)

While other less mainstream frameworks exist, the influence of these two quality frameworks is reflected in various formulations of quality in national EFA and education documents related to quality in education. In Indonesia and the Philippines, for example, improvement of quality of education is considered as pertaining to improvement of input, process and outputs of education, although detailed indicators may vary.

Still, no single framework of quality can be universally applied, with diversity of economic, political and social-cultural countries affecting what constitutes quality in different contexts. As such, the 2005 EFA Global Monitoring Report recommends countries to identify detailed approaches to monitor and improve quality by undergoing a deliberate process of dialogue that is designed to achieve:

Broad agreement about the aims and objectives of education; A frame for the analysis of quality that enables its various dimensions to be specified; An approach to measurement that enables the important variables to be identified and

assessed; A framework for improvement that comprehensively covers the interrelated

components of the education system and allows opportunities for change and reform to be identified.(EFA Global Monitoring Report 2005: The Quality Imperative)

4 UNICEF. 2000. Defining Quality in Education.


2.2 Scope of Review

In the remaining sections, a review of key progress achieved in the past decade as well as discussion of key issues and challenge will be provided, with the aim to identifying main priority areas and suggested strategies to accelerate progress towards 2015. While the scope of this note does not allow focused review of extensive list of input, process and outcome measures of quality education, a select set of key “building blocks” most commonly associated with quality of learning will be addressed, including learning outcomes, instruction time, textbooks, teachers and assessment systems.5 Particular focus will be made to review teachers and all variables related to their performance, as they are widely considered the greatest school-level factor in determining quality of learning outcomes. Key strategies such as school management will be discussed as potential priority areas for improving quality.

To the extent possible, analysis of disparities will be provided by dimensions of poverty, location and ethnicity/language, to the extent possible with available data.

Linkages with Other EDNs

Access and quality of education is inextricably linked. Getting children to come to school and stay in school are dependent on how well they are taught, which in turn affects the perceived quality of education by parents and, ultimately, the decision on attendance; Education of poor quality cannot attract and keep students in schools for them to achieve meaningful learning outcomes. Therefore, topics and issues analyzed under Goals 2 and 6 will be mutually reinforcing, and in order to ensure focus and depth in analysis for each note, it is suggested that certain input variables (WASH facilities, school health and nutrition, curriculum and alternative/non-formal delivery) to be covered under Goal 2, while qualitative aspects such as teacher quality issues is discussed under Goal 6. Other topics and issues analyzed under Goals 2 and 6 will be cross-referenced for consistency.

Goal 6 is closely interlinked with all other goals of EFA, from ECD to life long learning, but for the purposes of this Note, primary focus will be on primary and secondary level and academic learning outcomes. Detailed discussions on the quality of early childhood, life skills and lifelong learning, and adult literacy are provided in the Notes for Goals 1, 3, and 4, respectively.

3 Progress, Issues and Challenges

3.1 Learning Outcomes

Information on what children are learning, who is being left behind, and by how much, is relatively limited, particularly in developing countries in the region. Nevertheless, evidence 5 Data related to non-cognitive achievement such as social, emotional and creative capacities are limited, but where available, will be discussed to identify potential lessons learned.


from learning assessment studies in a select number of countries reveal mixed and limited progress, with average students performing near or below basic competency levels in key areas such as reading and math. In particular, reading levels in early grade is alarmingly low, which seriously jeopardizes learning opportunities in subsequent years.

International assessment studies show that cross-country disparities in learning are large, and within countries, inequity in learning achievement is as high, if not higher, than disparities between countries. Generally, students from developed countries show higher achievement rates than their counterparts in developing countries. At the same time, however, per capita income is only a fraction of what explains student achievement. Indeed, learning opportunities hinge on a multiplicity of factors related to students and parents, schools and education system and inequity in learning tend to be higher in low-income countries suggesting the dual challenge of raising overall as well as equity learning achievement.

National Learning Achievement levels

In an increasingly integrated world economy, how children fare by international benchmarks is an important measure for their future prospects and development. Across the region, an increasing, albeit limited, a number of countries in the region have participated in international assessments, making it possible to compare performance levels in key competency areas.

The latest Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) 2009, which assessed the reading, science and mathematics performance of 15-year old children, showed that there is a significant variation in achievement levels among countries in the Asia Pacific region.6 Performance levels in countries like Republic of Korea, Japan and Singapore are among the highest in the world, with average scores well above the OECD average in all three areas. By contrast, in Thailand, Indonesia and Kazakhstan, achievement levels are near or below 50 percent of OECD average scores in the three subjects. In particular, reading scores near or below baseline proficiency level 2- defined as essential level of skills to participate effectively and productively in society- is of great concern.

Figure 3: Average score for Reading, Math and Science in the Asia Pacific, select countries (2009)

6 OECD PISA assesses key competencies of 15-year-old students in OECD member and partner countries/economies on a triennial basis. Australia, Japan, Republic of Korea, New Zealand, Hong Kong (China), Indonesia, and Thailand have all participated in PISA since 2000. Chinese Taipei participated since 2006, while Shanghai (China), Singapore, Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan first joined in 2009. Himachal Pradesh (India), Tamil Nadu (India), Malaysia and Vietnam carried out assessments in 2010, with results expected in December 2011.


Hong K

ong-China

Japan

Korea

Shanghai-China

Singapore

Macao-C

hina

Chinese Taipei

Thailand

Australia

Indonesia

Kazakhstan

Kyrgyzstan

New Zealand

OEC

D A

ve

Non-O

ECD

Ave

300

350

400

450

500

550

600

650

Reading scale

Mathematics scale

Science scale

Level 4: 553

Level 3: 480

Level 2: 407

Source: OECD, PISA 2009 Database Results reveal glaring gaps in learning achievement between developed and developing country students at similar level of schooling, indicating the general rise in learning achievement with national income. At the same time, however, variations in per capita income seem to explain only part of the learning gap between the rich and poor countries. Average reading performances of students in Japan, Republic of Korea and Australia are higher than those of wealthier countries such as the United States. This is also reflected by the performance of students in the affluent state of Qatar, whose average reading score of 382 is much lower than their counterparts’ in Indonesia and Thailand. One of the most striking findings is the achievement levels of first-time participating economy- Shanghai, China- which marked an average score of 600, the highest score in the world by a wide margin. This brings to light that the idea of a world divided into rich and well-educated countries and poor and badly-educated countries is a misconceived one. Indeed, it suggests the wide belief that quality of teachers, schools and systems are equally, if not more, important than the level of financial investment in education.7

In addition to PISA, the 2007 Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (2007), which assesses the achievement of fourth and eighth grade students in mathematics and sciences, show that average student achievement in five of the region’s participating countries/economy of Hong Kong (SAR China), Singapore, Chinese Taipei, Japan and Korea is the highest in the world. There is a substantial gap in average achievement rate compared to the next group of similarly achieving countries, Hungary, England, Russian Federation and the United States. But as seen in Figure 4, the score ranges wide, and scores from 2006 PISA reveal significant achievement gaps for select participating countries like Kyrgyzstan, Indonesia and Thailand, where majority of students perform below minimum achievement levels.

7 This is also confirmed by largely stagnant average reading performance among OECD countries since 2000, despite major increases in financial investments observed in many countries. See PISA 2009.


Figure 4: Average Mathematics score, select countries (left, 2007) (right, 2006)

Source: TIMSS (2007), PISA (2006) [Fix red bar percentage points]

Although not internationally comparable, national assessments are being carried out in

increasing frequency across the region and further demonstrate the dismal levels of learning outcomes that belie the high rates of enrolment and completion in countries. Examples include the following:

In Cambodia, a sample-based learning assessment of grade 3 students found that 60 percent of students had “poor” or “very poor” skills in basic reading and writing in Khmer. (Cambodia Education Sector Support Project, 2006)

In India, a survey conducted across all rural regions in 2010 showed that only half of children in grade 5 could read a grade 2 level text. This is in comparison to 42 percent in 2007, showing learning gains have been very limited. Mathematics achievement is similarly low and even declining, with only 36% of children able to do simple division problems compared to 39 percent in 2009 (Pratham Resource Center, 2010). Another school-based assessment in India conducted in 2008 also confirmed that many students in grade 3, 4, and 5 cannot demonstrate basic reading, writing and arithmetic skills (Aide et Action, 2008).

In Pakistan, vast majority of grade 4 students cannot read text for grade 2 level students, while less than 24 percent could do basic division (South Asia Forum for Education Development, 2010). In Thailand, National Achievement Tests for grade 6 and grade 12 students show that average achievement rate is below 50 percent in English, Mathematics, Science and Social Science (National Economic and Social Development Board Report, 2008). National achievement levels in the Philippines are equally low, with average grade 6 achievement below 70 percent in all subjects tested, except Filipino (Department of Education, Philippines, 2011). [Add: results from national learning achievements in other countries]

Despite such significant learning deficits, a review of performance trends since 2000 suggests that some countries continue to struggle to get on the right track to improve learning achievement. Reading achievement levels in rural India has declined since 2007, with the


proportion of standard 5 students able to read a story designed for standard 2 students less in 2010 than in 2007, while the proportion of students who can only read a single word has been rising. By contrast, in the case of Philippines, there has been a steady, albeit small, increase in achievement in all subjects tested since 2005.

Figure 5: Trend in % of reading achievement, by type, standard 5 (2007-2010)

2007 2008 2009 20100

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

WordStory

Source: ASER 2011

Figure 6: Trend in National Achievement test scores, Grade 6 (2005-2010)

2005-2006 2006-2007 2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-20100.00%

10.00%

20.00%

30.00%

40.00%

50.00%

60.00%

70.00%

80.00%

MathematicsScienceEnglishHekasiFilipino

Source: Department of Education, Philippines

According to PISA, Indonesia raised its average reading performance by 31 points between 2000 and 2009, making it the highest increase among participating Asia Pacific countries. In particular, it is noteworthy that the increase in average student performance was achieved with improved equity in achievement levels, with gains mainly driven by improved performance from the bottom end of the performance distribution. As seen in Table 1, over 15 percent decline was observed in the proportion of students performing below the baseline proficiency Level 2. This is in contrast to the experience of Republic of Korea, where, during the same period, there was an increase in average performance from its already high levels, but it was driven by the increase in the proportion of top performers, while the share of poor performers remained constant. In Thailand, average score average reading score fell from its already low levels a decade ago, with greater proportion of low performing students than in 2000.

Table 1: Change in reading performance, select countries (2000-2009)Country Mean Score in

Reading 2009Change in reading performance between 2000 and 2009All students Share of students

below proficiency Share of students

at proficiency


Level 2 Level 5 or aboveIndonesia 402 31 -15.2Korea 539 15 0.0 7.2Hong Kong-China 533 8 -0.8 2.9

Japan 520 -2 3.5 3.6New Zealand 521 -8 0.6 -3.0Thailand 421 -9 5.8 -0.2Australia 515 -13 1.8 -4.9

Source: OECD, PISA Database

In Indonesia, reading performance of both its highest and lowest achieving students improved, with greater score gains in the latter group, suggesting improved equity. Similar increase is observed in Republic of Korea and Hong Kong, China, albeit to a lesser degree. Again, although the absolute achievement levels in Indonesia still lag well behind those two countries, it is still encouraging to see the gains in achievement is distributed relatively well across all performance levels. In contrast, trends in Japan show that scores decreased for students in the bottom distributions in achievement and increased for those in the top distribution, suggesting a widening gap between the highest and lowest achieving students.

Figure 7: Performance change among the lowest and highest achieving students in reading (2000-2009)

-40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70-30

-20

-10

0

10

20

30

40

Republic of Korea

Republic of Korea

Changes for lowest- and highest-achieving students

Change in the 10th percentile between 2000 and 2009

Chan

ge in

the

90th

per

centi

le b

etw

een

200

0 a

nd 2

009

Decrease in lowest-achieving stu-dentsDecrease in highest-achieving stu-dents

Increase in lowest-achieving stu-dentsDecrease in highest-achieving stu-dents

Increase in highest-achieving stu-dentsIncrease in lowest-achieving stu-dents

Increase in highest-achieving stu-dentsDecrease in lowest-achieving stu-dents

Source: OECD, PISA Database

Gaps in early grade reading achievements


The dismal levels of learning achievement demonstrated by international and national assessments studies suggests that learning deficits are likely to be a cumulative effect of limited learning throughout children’s years in schools. Indeed, assessments of early grade reading undertaken in the region are beginning to uncover that schools are failing to provide children the most fundamental reading and comprehending words and texts essential to undertake meaningful learning activities. Consequently, too many children are progressing through years of schooling without genuine opportunities to acquire competency in areas such as math and sciences.

Research has shown that investments in developing reading and writing skills must start in the foundational years, with limited acquisition compromising the opportunities to learn in subsequent years.8 Children who learn to read late face difficulties in reading textbooks of their grades, begin to develop negative attitudes toward reading and are less likely to complete schools. Thus, countries in the Asia Pacific region are beginning to turn attention to identification of reading deficits in early grades by measuring levels of reading fluency and comprehension.9 A select number of countries are using models of the Early Grade Reading Assessments (EGRA) approach to conduct sample-based assessments of varying scales, in which nationally defined standards of reading competency levels appropriate to their own linguistic characteristics are being applied.

Differences in language standards and assessment protocols call for considerable caution against making comparisons of results across different language and countries.10 Nevertheless, the findings provide a sense of alarmingly low levels of reading achievement among children in early grades in most countries. A significant proportion of children in early grades are unable to read a single word, and those that can read still struggle to read with comprehension. Key findings from select national, sample-based assessments illustrate the dismal findings:

Cambodia (2010): Basic Grade 1 reading test in Khmer language; administered to approximately 24,000 students in Grades s thru 6, in 40 schools in 18 provinces 33 percent cannot read a single word 28 percent cannot recognize basic vowels and consonants 46.6 percent can read but not comprehend

Timor Leste (2009)Basic Grade 1 reading test in Tetum and Portuguese languages; administered to approximately 900 children in Grades 1 thru 3 in 40 schools

8 Jukes, Mathew, Shaher Banu Vagh & Young-Suk Kim. 2006. Development of Assessments of Reading Ability and Classroom Behavior, a report prepared for the World Bank. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Graduate School of Education.9 According to studies, fluent and quick reading is strongly correlated with reading comprehension. In general, approximately forty words per minute is considered to be indicative for comprehension, but estimates vary by language. See Abadzi, H. 2006. Efficient Learning for the Poor: Insights from the Frontier of Cognitive Neuroscience. Washington, D.C.: e World Bank.10 In each country, there is considerable variation in the assessment methodology and analysis, due to differences in language structures, theory of reading acquisition and local assessment practices. Thus, it is not appropriate to compare average oral reading fluency rates across different languages and countries.


70 percent of children at the end of Grade 1; 40 percent of children at the end of Grade 2 cannot read a single word

Two-thirds of children in Grade 3 cannot read with fluency

TongaBasic Grade 1 reading test in Tongan language; administered to approximately 1200 children in Grades 1 thru 3 in 60 government schools 37 percent of Grade 1 children cannot read a single word 66 percent of Grade 3 children cannot read with fluency

VanuatuTests in French and English; administered to approximately 1300 children in each language in about 70 schools In English, 73 percent of Grade 1 and 37 percent of Grade 2 children cannot read a single

word Only 9 percent of all students tested were fluent with 83 percent average comprehension In French, 80 percent of Grade 1 and 25 percent of Grade 2 children cannot read a single

word Only 8 percent of all students were fluent with 64 percent average comprehension

In rural India, trends in reading levels in early grades from 2007 to 2010 portray a rather gloomy picture, with very little gains made in recent years. The proportion of children in Standards 1 thru 3 who can read simple text designed for Standard 1 has been stagnating, with only negligible amount of gains among Standard 1 children. With less than 25 percent of children able to read at Standard 1 level by the time they are at Standard 3, there is a dire need to elevate reading levels.

Figure 8: Trends in % of children who can read Std 1 level text, by Standards (2007-2010)

2007 2008 2009 20100

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

Std 1Std 2Std 3

Source: ASER, 2011

Various adaptations of the approach are also being used by NGOs such as Pratham, Room to Read and Save the Children for baseline assessments and evaluations of programs. And while results of these studies are not nationally representative, they provide useful observations of reading deficits of young children in the region. For example, in Pakistan, a startling 91 percent of tested children in Pashtu and 66 percent in Urdu could not read a single word by the end of Grade 2. In Nepal, 79 percent of tested children during Grade 2 could not read a word, while Table 2 below provides a summary of key results.


Table 2: Findings from select program baseline early grade reading assessments in select countries

Country Program Year Langua

ges Grade Sample size

% of children who cannot read a single word in a simple paragraph

11Afghanistan USAID/PACE-A 2007 Dari and

Pashtu End of 2 309 21

12Bangladesh Room to Read Bangla Beg of 2 400 14

13Nepal Save the Children 2009 Nepali Mid-yr 2 272 79

14Pakistan Save the Children

2009 Pashtu, Urdu End of 2 234,

23491,66

15Philippines

Manila Save the Children 2009

Filipino,English Mid-yr 3

160,160

1,2

Mindanao

Filipino,English

541,541

24,30

Sri Lanka Room to Read Beg of 2 400 25

Author’s compilation, Sources: Cao, 2010; Dowd et al., 2010a; Dowd et al., 2010b; Pinto, 2010; Schuh Moore et al., 2010a; Schuh Moore et al., 2010b; Stannard, 2008

Other outcomes: values, attitudes, life skills and 21c skills

To be added

International or national assessments often focus on student knowledge within well-defined domains on particular academic components, such as language and mathematics, and seldom examine broader issues related to student values, attitudes and other non-academic attributes. Assessments of these studies from OECD countries show these are important skills for longer term academic and social and emotional well-being of learners and nations.

Increasingly, countries are identifying non-academic development as important objectives of education (EX. Nat’l ed strategies Bhutan, Brunei, China)

PISA results reveal interesting trends in motivation and attitude levels vis-à-vis academic achievement levels in East Asia.

Key Issues and Challenges: Factors of marginalization in learning

11 Stannard, H. 2008. Results from a Rapid Reading and Numeracy Test: Assessing Reading and Numeracy Achievement of Community-Based Primary Students in Afghanistan. Prepared for USAID.12 Jhingran, D. 2011. Reading Failure in Primary Grades: A serious challenge to equity in primary education. 2011. PowerPoint accessed on 1 June 2011 at www.create-rpc.org/pdf_documents/Delhi2011D.Jhingran.pdf13 Schuh Moore, A., J. DeStefano, and E. Adelman. 2010a. Opportunity to Learn and Early Grade Reading Fluency to Measure School Effectiveness in Ethiopia, Guatemala, Honduras, and Nepal. Prepared for USAID/EQUIP2 Project. Available at http://www.equip123.net/docs/e2-School_Effectiveness-Synthesis.pdf (accessed August 20, 2010).14 Dowd, A.J., C. Ochoa, I. Alam, J. Pari, and J. Afsar Babar. 2010a. Literacy Boost Pakistan Baseline Report. Prepared for Save the Children.15 Cao, Y. 2010. Literacy Boost 2009 Assessment: Philippines. Prepared for Philippines Country Office, Save the Children.


As previously seen, available evidence of learning achievement demonstrates that there are marked variations in learning achievement within countries. Disaggregated information on learning achievement is patch in developing countries, but nevertheless, some commonalities can be observed to have strong associations in learning levels, albeit to varying degrees of influence depending on context. Factors related to individual students and families are inextricably linked to a child’s capacity to learn to fullest potential, before and during school years. Schools do not work in isolation, but rather, inherits students of diverse socioeconomic backgrounds, some of whose learning chances may be crucially disadvantaged by extreme poverty, linguistic marginalization, geographical isolation, etc. While education systems may have limited power to negate such disadvantages, quality of schools can counteract their degree of influence in learning achievement. However, the visible variations in school quality by geographical location suggest that many education systems across the region often magnify the disadvantages. Some of these patterns are discussed below.

Student and family background

By the time children enter school at the average age of six, a complex array of inherent and socio-economic and cultural influences will have already impacted their ability to participate and succeed as learners. Those same factors, although variable over time, is likely to continue to influence children’s learning opportunities on they come to school, as what is experienced and acquired during hours spent within schools can be either magnified or counteracted by what happens outside of schools in critical ways. Certain student characteristics, such as gender (see EDN Goal 5), early childhood care (see EDN Goal 1), and family background characteristics, such as ethnicity, language, income poverty, and geographical location, are often observed to have prominent effects on learning outcomes. In some countries, factors such as caste system, immigrant status and family structures can also affect learning.

One of the most common factors in learning disparities is home language that is different from language of instruction. In Asia Pacific region, an estimated 3,572 ethnic languages exist, but only about 50 languages are considered official.16 Hence, despite tremendous linguistic diversity in schools, children are often subjected to medium of instruction that they do not comprehend, which compromises genuine opportunities to learn for ethnic minority children. Research has consistently shown that children who cannot use and build upon their oral vocabulary and phonemic awareness acquired prior to entering schools are likely to struggle in schools.17 Thus, many ethnic minority children often struggle to learn effectively and are eventually at higher risk of being “pushed out” of schools.

Results from early grade reading assessments show that young children are no exceptions, with achievement disparities visible from the very initial years in schools; In fact, the

16 Lewis, M.P., ed. 2009. Ethnologue: Languages of the World, Sixteenth edition. Dallas, Texas:SIL International.

17 UNESCO (United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization). 2008. Improving the Quality of Mother Tongue-based Literacy and Learning: Case Studies from Asia, Africa and South America. Bangkok: UNESCO Asia and Pacific Regional Bureau for Education. Available at http://www.unescobkk.org/index.php?id=9050


inequities in the crucial first early years often set the stage for learning gaps in subsequent years.

An increasing number of studies are showing that children whose are not taught in their mother tongue score significantly lower in reading and math than their counterparts, adjusting for factors like socioeconomic background and location.18,19 In Vietnam, 90 percent of Hmong ethnic group are in the bottom 20 percent of national distribution for years in school.20 [Add more ex of language and learning achievement (not access or survival)]

Socioeconomic characteristics, including income poverty, parent’s education, home educational resources, also influence learning outcomes. Income poverty, in particular, remains a pervasive, dominant barrier to learning. Generally, children from poor families are less likely to enroll in schools, effectively denied from opportunities to learn. Despite broad efforts to abolish school fees in primary education, a host of hidden fees associated with transport, uniforms, and textbooks, as well as opportunity costs of attendance make education unaffordable for the poorest families. (See EDN Goal 2 for further discussion on disparities in access by income poverty).

Even when children from poor families enter schools, they tend to drop out early, with lower survival rates to grade 5 and transition to secondary education. Reasons for drop-out may be broad, but research has shown that that sensitivity to cost of schooling is high for low-income households, suggesting greater chance of dropout in the higher grades as fees and opportunity costs increase.21 In India, children from families in the lowest income quintile survive an average of 5 years of schooling, compared to over 11 years for those from highest income quintile. In Pakistan and Indonesia, children from poorest families are nearly 30 percent more likely drop out by grad 9 compared to those from richest families.

Figure 9: Grade survival rate, by income quintile, in Pakistan and Indonesia

18 Flores-Crespo P. 2007. Ethnicity, identity and educational achievement in Mexico, International Journal of Education and Development; Vol. 27(3) pp. 331-33919 McEwan, Patrick J., and Marisol Trowbridge. 2007. The achievement of indigenous students In Guatemalan primary schools. International Journal of Educational Development 27(1):61-76.20 UNESCO. 2010. EFA Global Monitoring Report. P. 15321 Orzam,P., and E.M. King. 2008. “Schooling in Developing Countries: The Roles and Supply, Demand and Government Policy.” In Handbook of Development Economics, Vol. 4, ed. T.P. Schultz and J. Strauss, 3475-3353. Amsterdam: Elsevier B.V.


Source: calculations based on national DHS, cited in Learning for All, World Bank Education Strategy 2020, Apr 2011.

Moreover, children from poor families are likely to have insufficient early childhood care and education; home educational resources; access to private tutoring; all of which can create gaps in learning compared to their peers in schools. Learning achievement studies by income clearly reflects the learning gap between children from rich and poor families. With disproportionately high proportion of children out of school from poor families, actual learning gap between them and their peers is likely to be much greater than what is observed.

[Add: more country ex’s of learning achievement by income quintile]

Because income poverty is also closely associated with other family socioeconomic factors that affect learning, learning outcomes can be seen to be a cumulative effect of interrelated factors. Using data from PISA, the percentage of variance in reading performance that is attributable to different characteristics of family background can be estimated. and a significant proportion explained by more than one factor. As illustrated by Figure 6, in all countries, socioeconomic status affects the level of reading achievement, although the extent to which those characteristics impact different learning outcomes for children varies considerably across countries. Overall, occupational status has the most important effect in countries in East Asia and the Pacific, with combined total effect of family background having the limited influences in Indonesia and Japan compared to New Zealand and average OECD countries. At the same time, relatively high proportion of variance is explained by “number of books at home”, wealth and home educational resources in Indonesia as well as in other middle and low-income countries like Thailand, China, Kyrgyzstan and Kazakhstan. In all countries, a significant proportion is explained by more than one factor.

Figure 10: Percentage of variance in reading achievement explained by various family background characteristics


Indonesia

Japan

Macao-China

Hong Kong-China

Korea

Shanghai-China

Kazakhstan

Australia

Thailand

Singapore

Chinese Taipei

OECD average

New Zealand

Kyrgyzstan

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Highest occupational status of parents and highest level of parents' educationCultural possessions and number of books at homeHome educational resourcesWealth

Source: OECD, PISA 2009 Database

Geographic location

Geographic location of residence is visibly associated with variations in children’s learning outcomes. Typically, assessment studies show strong learning disparities at sub-national, regional levels, and when available, by urban-rural divide.

Sub-national, regional gaps are often reflections of differences in household wealth and income (linked to endowments and historical investments) and even deeply rooted in ethnic, cultural identities, which may be an additional source of disparities.

Gaps by urban and rural setting, on the other hand, suggest critical differences in quality of schools, (although there are expected overlaps with demand-side factors of marginalization). In rural regions, lower population density means children are more likely to attend schools farther from home, creating potential barriers to enrolment and attendance rates for both children and teachers. According to a study by UIS, the percentage of primary school principals reporting their students had to walk five or more kilometers to school ranged from 6.5 percent in Malaysia, 8.0 percent in the Philippines and 18.3 percent in Sri Lanka.22 Even when in schools, children are more likely to be deprived of adequate facilities, quality teachers and learning materials. As will be discussed in the next section, available data

22 UIS. 2008. A View Inside Primary Schools. pg. 245


shows that, in general, the distribution and quality of key material and human resources across countries tend to be significantly uneven at sub-national levels. 23 Learning achievement results reflect such quality gaps. In the Philippines, a small-scale early grade reading assessment found that 24 percent and 30 percent of Grade 3 children in Mindanao could not read in Filipino and English, respectively, compared to less than 2 percent of non-readers in Manila. In India, children in Kerala, Uttaranchal, and West Bengal perform substantially better on reading assessments, with less than 25 percent or fewer children in standard 5 unable to read, compared to over 50 percent of children in Uttar Pradesh, Gujarat and Madhya Pradesh. [Add more examples of geographical disparities (i.e., India from ASER 2010)]

Children living in urban slums are increasingly become a significant category of marginalized group. Half of world’s population now lives in cities, with an estimated one-third of urban dwellers in developing countries living in slums.24 They are likely to live in generally unhealthy conditions, exposing them to heightened risks of malnutrition, illness, and violence. In many instances, urban slum populations are driven to cities by poverty, and children are likely to face additional disparities, due to lack of formal residence status and birth certificates, and participation in child labor, combined effects of which can have detrimental impact on participation and learning in schools.

Important policy concern is that, oftentimes, disadvantaged children often face multiple factors of marginalization. As noted in 2010 EFA GMR, “poverty, gender, ethnicity, and other characteristics interact to create overlapping and self-reinforcing layers of disadvantage that limit opportunity and hamper social mobility.”

Schools and education systems factors

Children’s learning outcomes are also influenced by quality of schools and education systems. International research shows that, after adjusting for student and family backgrounds, differences in school-based factors have great impact on learning outcomes.25 In low quality schools, there may be sufficient classroom resources for all children; teachers may be far too frequently late or absent, and even when present, not speak the same language as children’s and teach in ways that exclude girls or boys, and ignore those children who need help the most. Despite these failings, there may be no realization of shortcomings, because there’s no assessment of outcomes and accountability for results.

All of the above factors would not meet the learning needs of children, especially those marginalized children who require close attention and support to overcome the barriers to learning. Ultimately, schools would “push out” children, as opportunities outside of schools may seem better than those inside. As noted in one study from Indonesia, “poverty combined

23 Zhang, Y., Postlethwaite, T. N. and Grisay, A. 2008. A View Inside Primary Schools: A World Education Indicators (WEI) Cross-National Study. Montreal, Que, UNESCO Institute for Statistics.24 UN-HABITAT 2008.25 Willms, J. D. 2006. Learning Divides: Ten Key Policy Questions about the Performance and Equity of Schoolsand Schooling Systems. Montreal, Que, UNESCO Institute for Statistics. (UIS Working Paper, 5.)


with dysfunctional communities, dysfunctional families, and dysfunctional schools that threaten, abuse, and disable young people to the point where they decide that the most appropriate choice in all their complex circumstances is to leave school.”26

Studies show that importance of schools and systems in learning outcomes are especially pronounced in developing countries.27 In the remaining sections, some of the essential building blocks- inputs and processes- that make up quality schools and systems will be discussed, with emphasis on teacher quality.

3.2 Instructional Time

The number of hours devoted to teaching and learning activities is a direct input to schools, and a wealth of research indicates that actual time spent on instruction is a key determinant of learning achievement. According to numerous international agencies and reports, the recommended minimum hours of instructional time, or also referred to as “opportunities to learn,” is 850 to 1000 hours of schooling (aside from breaks and lunch periods) for all primary school years28. The Education for All framework calls for at least 850 hours, or for about 200 days for 5 days per week.29 Of these, about 80 percent spent need to be specifically on learning activity- time on task- in order to expect achievement.30 Figure 11 below depicts the varying levels of official intended yearly instructional time by region, and as expected, average instruction time increases with grade level. Compared to other regions, the cumulative average instructional time required in East Asia and the Pacific region is one of the highest in the world, starting with 765 hours in grade 1 and rising to 842 hours in grade 6. On the other hand, South and West Asia region are close to the global median, but with notably steep increases by grades, from 675 hours for early grades and, by grade 6, increasing to the highest level in the world at 879 hours.31

Data from select World Education Indicators (WEI) countries are shown in Table 3, reflecting the wide variations across countries. 32 In general, Asian countries require far above the recommended annual hours of instruction in primary school, with close to or more than 1000 hours of instruction required in India, Indonesia, Sri Lanka, Philippines and Thailand, compared to the average of 803 hours among OECD countries and 656 hours in the

26 Cannon, R., and R. Arlianti. 2007. Transition to and Participation in Junior Secondary School. Jakarta:United States Agency for International Development. (pg 5)27 Baker, D. P., Goesling, B., & LeTendre, G. K. (2002). Socioeconomic status, school quality and national economic development: A cross-national analysis of the “Heyneman-Loxley effect” on mathematics and science achievement. Comparative Education Review, 46(3), 291–312.28 World Bank. 2004. Books, Buildings and Learning Outcomes: An Impact Evaluation of World Bank Support to Basic Education in Ghana. Washington, DC, World Bank. 29 UNESCO GMR 200530 Abadzi, H. 2006. Efficient Learning for the Poor: Insights from the Frontier of Cognitive Neuroscience. Washington, DC, World Bank.31 2007d. Worldwide tendencies in the use of the term ‘basic education’ in K-12 educational programmes at the start of the twenty-first century (prepared by Massimo Amadio and Nhung Truong). Background paper for EFA Global Monitoring Report 2008.32 WEI countries include Argentina, Brazil, China, India, Indonesia, Malaysia, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Sri Lanka, Tunisia, and Uruguay.


Russian Federation. By levels, official instructional hours remain the same for primary and lower secondary levels for Malaysia, while in India, Sri Lanka and Thailand, longer hours of teaching is required for secondary level compared to those of primary level; this contrasts with the decreasing hours of instruction from primary to secondary reported among OECD countries. Indonesia is an interesting exception, with primary teachers expected to work 1240 hours in primary level, compared to just 738 hours expected of secondary teachers. [Add more explanation]

Instruction time also varies greatly within countries, by region, by type of schools.[Add: figures using sub-national data for available 3 countries from WEI 2008]

Figure 11: Median yearly official instructional time in grades 1-6, by region

Source: UNESCO-IBE (2007)

Table 3: Instructional time in public schools in select countries, by level of education,Teaching hours per year

Country Primary education

Lower secondary education

(1) (2)WEI countriesIndia 1013 1125Indonesia 1260 738Malaysia 650 650Philippines 1182 1182Russian Federation 656 946Sri Lanka 1056 1218Thailand 740 925WEI Mean 740 1218

OECD countriesAustralia 877 815


Japan 705 600New Zealand 985 968Republic of Korea 755 545OECD mean 798 607

Source: WEI (2010); OECD Database (2009)

While most countries do mandate the recommended instructional time, variations in time allocations by grade is not optimum in many countries in the region. In particular, the intended instructional hours in early grades needs more attention, with increasing calls size as children progress through the education system means that children are likely to receive the least individual attention in the early grades. In Nepal, for instance, average class size in grade 5 is thirty students, while grade 1 class was an average of fifty-nine students. 33 Also, early grades are more likely to be designed as double or triple shift school days, in order to meet high enrolment rates, effectively curbing the instructional hours and opportunity to learn. With studies showing the importance of early grades as the years when children best gain the foundational skills in literacy and numeracy, insufficient instructional hours allocated for early grades have significant implications to adversely affect learning achievement in subsequent years.

Furthermore, despite the statutory requirements for instructional time, in reality, the intended hours of instruction are often unmet. Systematic data and surveys related to instructional time is not available, but a number of independent studies suggest that time “leakages” is widespread in most developing countries. In Nepal, for example, a series of surveys showed that schools operate an average of three hours per day, which effectively halved the annual instructional hours from the intended hours of over 1000 hours to a mere 540 hours.34 Another study conducted in a number of small primary schools showed that, compared to the officially required 192 days of school year, average student experienced only 97 days of effective learning.35 Stark variations in instructional time are also expected across different schools. In Bangladesh, an in-depth study conducted for government primary schools and registered, non-government primary schools found that the bottom 10 percent of government schools provided few than 500 hours per year for grades 1 to 5, whereas the top 10 percent schools provided more than 860 hours; in non-government schools, average instructional hours were even lower, with the equivalent range reported to be 470 to 700 hours.36

Key issues and challenges

Leakages in instructional time can occur at various levels, including at school and individual levels. First, time loss from schools can be significant. School year may start late and en early, and on any given days, schools may be open for much than their official timetables, or 33 Financial Management Reform Programme. 2006. Primary education in Bangladesh: Assessing service delivery.Dhaka/Oxford, UK FMRP/Oxford Policy Management. (Social Sector Performance Surveys.). Cited in GMR 2010, pg 11434 Watkins, Kevin. (2000). The Oxfam Education Report. Bath, UK: Redwood Books.35 Dowd, A. J. 2009. A Day in School: Are Students Getting an Opportunity to Learn? Paper presented at the Comparative and International Education Society Conference, Charleston, SC, 24 March. Cited in EFA Global Monitoring Report (2010), pg 11436 Financial Management Reform Programme. 2006. Cited in GMR 2009, pg 115


not open at all, resulting in significant reduction in overall instruction hours. Reasons are many and varied, with some imposed by the system, such as late teacher postings, teacher-parent meetings and teacher training sessions, while others are voluntary, such as high teacher turnover or teacher labour strikes. Some days are also lost due to unforeseen circumstances like armed conflict, adverse climactic conditions and teacher’s illness, both of which may be shocks that poor, under-resourced schools cannot effectively cope with compared to more prepared, resourceful schools.

Instructional time loss also occurs due to another widespread malady of developing education systems- teacher absenteeism. In South Asia, numerous studies have been conducted on teacher absenteeism and suggests considerably high incidence. In India, a nationally representative survey of 3759 public primary schools was conducted, revealing an average of 25 percent of teachers are absent at some point during a school day, with rates as high as 38 percent and 42 percent in Maharashtra and Jharkhand, respectively.37 Another study in Udaipur found that average teacher absence rate in NGO-ran non-formal education centers were 38 percent.38 In Pakistan, one survey found teacher absenteeism to be around 14 percent in public as well as private schools in the Northwest Frontier Province and Punjab, with some longitudinal studies suggesting a rate closer to 24 percent.39 The underlying causes of teacher absenteeism have been examined in many studies, and many factors such as limited accountability, poor professional support, and low pay, have some effect. In a sample of 3000 public schools in India, only one teacher was reported to have been fired because of repeated absence. Whatever the cause, instruction time loss incurred by teacher absenteeism and its ultimate effect on learning has been evidenced in many studies, including an Indonesian study that found higher teacher absenteeism led to lower fourth-grade student achievement on math after controlling for family characteristics, teacher quality and school conditions.40 Sometimes, teacher absence in classrooms is manifested in form of delays to report to school as well as in obligations to perform administrative task (see Abadzi (2009) for more details). For example, schools in poor communities are often unable to afford administrative support and rely on teachers to serve administrative duties in addition to their teaching.41

Furthermore, instructional time is also lost due to wasting of “time on task,” or classroom time that is actually spent in learning activities. Inside the classroom, time “off task” can be commonplace, with teachers required to spend time for classroom management, discipline, and, in context of limited teaching resources, lesson preparation such as copying materials

37 Chaudhury, N. Hammer, M. Kremer,K. Mularidharan, and H. Rogers. (2004). “Roll call: Teacher Absence in India.” Development Economics Department, World Bank, Washington. DC.38 Duflo, E. and R. Hanna. (2005). “Monitoring Works: Getting Teachers to Come to school.” Mimeo, MIT.39 Sathar, Z.A, C.B. Loyd, M. Ul Haque, M.J. Grant, and M. Khan. (2005). “Fewer and Better Children: Expanding Choices and School Fertility in Rural Pakistan.” New York: Population Council, Policy Research Division. And Vermeersch, C., and Kremer, M. (2004). “School Meals, Education Achievement and School Competition: Evidence from a Randomized Evaluation.” Policy Research Working Paper 3523. World Bank, Washington, D.C.40 Lewis, M., and M. Lockheed. (2006). Inexcusable Absence: Why 60 Million Girls still aren’t in school and what do to about it. Washington, DC: Center for Global Development. 41 Chaudhury, N., J. Hammer, M. Kremer, K. Muralidharan, and F. H. Rogers. Draft. (2005). Missing in Action: Teacher and Health Worker Absence in Developing Countries. Washington, D.C.: The World Bank.


and writing on blackboards. Overall quality of teachers- discussed in the next section- also matter significantly in their ability to manage classroom time to fullest effect.

Figure 12 below depicts an example of time loss and resulting time on task, based on a 2008 school effectiveness study conducted in Nepal, by the Education Quality Improvement Program 2 in partnerships with Save the Children. Once accounting for the cumulative effects of time loss determinants, the number of days available for teaching is nearly half of the official days in the district of Kanchapur, and almost 60 percent was lost in Kailali.

Figure 12: Time on task estimates for Grade 3 in select districts, Nepal (2008)

Kanchapur Kailali0

50

100

150

200192 192

173 174158 157

145 145

10179

Official DaysSchool ClosedTeacher AbsenceDaily Time LostTime-on-task

Source: USAID, EQUIP2 case study

Finally, high absenteeism rates and general disengagement of students in learning activities can compound instruction time loss. It is also likely that instructional time loss is more acute effects on learning achievement levels of disadvantaged children in poor, remote communities, as 1) school and teacher level causes associated with time loss (teacher quality, absenteeism) are likely to be more pronounced; and 2) children from poor families are less likely to receive with compensatory options such as private tutoring. [Add more examples]

Overall, instructional time loss of such magnitude can have serious consequences in the continuity of learning, children’s motivations to learn and, ultimately, their learning achievement. Improving the situation may be challenging, with chronic overcrowding in classrooms and limited financial capacity to build schools presenting double shift school days as the only options in many schools. Nevertheless, limited instruction time, and particularly, variations within countries warrant attention by policymakers. Improvement can be made, through policy interventions that tackles a host of problems associated with teacher absenteeism- low pay, poor working conditions and teacher motivation- as well as strengthening the overall school management and governance. [See Bray for issues related to double shift schooling.]

3.3 Textbooks and Learning Materials

To be added


Research shows that quality textbooks and learning materials in the hands of children are among the most important inputs to promoting learning. However, provision of quality materials are lacking across the region, particularly for those that speak minority languages, live in remote regions. Affects of limited supply inevitably compromises teaching practices, with precious instruction time lost from copying/writing on blackboards, and low quality textbooks with gender bias and irrelevant examples limiting gender-responsive teaching practices.

Pupil-book ratio Information on textbook quality and types of instructional/learning materials ICT

Key issues and challenges

Issues related to costs of production, development, equity in distribution Frequent curricular reforms Limited teacher training and usage, particularly with ICT Limited in-home reading materials, a critical supplementary resource especially in early

grades

3.4 Teachers What teachers know and practice is widely recognized as the single most important determinant of student achievement. More importantly, the effect of teacher quality is particularly pronounced in achievement variations among students from disadvantaged families; With evidence pointing to the cumulative nature of benefits of good teaching, teachers have the potential to offset the learning deficits of disadvantaged students who are provided with good teaching over consecutive years.42 Thus, the best strategy for closing the achievement gaps is to ensure that schools serving disadvantaged children have sufficient number of qualified teachers.

Policies to recruit, prepare and retain good teachers are becoming central to policy agenda to improve schools across the region. Generally, professional training and qualifications, subject matter knowledge and overall academic aptitude, initial experience, and motivation of teachers have all been considered key marks of quality teachers. While evidence is still far from conclusive on the magnitude of their importance, teachers with these qualities are more likely to produce effective teaching than those without them.43 Across the region, there is scarce systematic data related to teacher quality, making it challenging to assess the progress and gaps remaining. Analysis on the contribution of specific policy interventions is also relatively limited, highlighting the critical need for further research. Some snapshots from available evidence base are provided below.

42 Hanushek, E.A., and S.G. Rivkin. 2005. “Teacher Quality.” In Handbook of the Economics of Education (Vol 2). Elsevier, Amsterdam. ; And Nye, B., S. Konstantopoulos, and L.V. Hedges. 2004. “How large are teacher effects?” Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 26 (3), 237-257. 43 Goldhaber, D. 2002. “The Mystery of Good Teaching: Surveying the Evidence on Student Achievement and Teachers’ Characteristics.” Education Next, 2 (1), 50-55.


Trained and certified teachers

Many studies demonstrate that students taught by teachers who have acquired professional teacher training in pedagogy and corresponding certifications tend to perform better than those taught by teachers without such training, although effects of training and certification cannot be generalized due to large variations in the quality of training and certification standards.44

Across the region, various forms of teacher education have been and continue to be one of the key policy priorities in education, and specific minimum years of teacher training prior to entering the profession are required for certification. As seen in Figure 13, an average of 4 years of training is officially required for primary and secondary schools teachers in developed countries such as, while developing countries require an average of 3 years of training. However, the years of schooling required before entering training programs is highly variable by country and by level, and cumulative years of schooling vary accordingly. In Lao PDR, for instance, primary teachers can have between eight and 11 years of schooling before entering three years of training; secondary teachers need 10 to 11 years of schooling is needed to enter three or four years of training. This contrasts with 12 years of prior schooling required in Thailand before entering four years of training plus one year of internship, totaling 16 years of education.

Figure 13: Years of pre-service teaching training required in select countries

Source: UNESCO (2008) Status of Teacher Education in the Asia and the Pacific-Pacific Region. Santika and Cahyanto (2009) Indonesia's Innovative Teacher Training Program for Investing in the Future. Ministry of Education, Thailand (2006) Education in Thailand 2005/2006. Ministry of Education, Viet Nam (2005) Education law (http://en.moet.gov.vn/?page=8.8&view=5101) . Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations, Australia (2010) Overview (http://www.deewr.gov.au/schooling/pages/overview.aspx). Ministry of Education, Sports and Culture, Samoa (2007) Education for All: Mid-term Assessment Report 2007 (http://www.mesc.gov.ws/pdf/efa_web.pdf). Ministry of Education, Nepal (2009). School Sector Reform Plan 2009-2015.

Compared to 2000, the proportions of trained primary school teachers in Vietnam reportedly increased from 80 percent to near 100 percent. Myanmar has achieved similar success, with the 99 percent of its primary teachers and 96 percent of secondary teachers trained, compared to less than 70 percent ten years ago. The two countries also improved its share of trained 44 Darling-Hammond, L., Berry, B., & Thoreson, A. (2001). Does teacher certification matter? Evaluating the evidence. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 23:(1), 57–77.


secondary teachers, and did so even as PTRs declined in both primary and secondary, suggesting significant investments made in countries for teacher development (Add more explanation on policies of two countries).

By contrast, percentage of trained teachers in primary education remains largely insufficient in Kyrgyzstan (66), Nepal (66), Bangladesh (58), Maldives (74), having increased only marginally since 2000. In Bhutan, the proportion of trained teachers declined since 2000, from 95 to 91 percent in primary and from 95 to 83 percent in secondary education. Generally, gaps in trained teachers are larger in secondary level compared to primary, as in the case of Lao PDR, where only 46.5 percent of secondary teachers are trained compared to 97 percent in primary.45

Despite the increased efforts to require training and certification, however, it is difficult to gauge the progress in actual levels of teachers’ skills. Indeed, the structure, content, and the overall quality of training programs vary widely, likely leading to variations in the levels of skills acquired between graduates from different training programs across and within countries. For instance, according to an estimate by UNESCO- UIS, using the ISCED level, nearly 55 percent of primary teachers in Lao PDR don’t have lower secondary education level, which is widely considered the minimum requirement to enter the teaching profession. Education levels of teachers are similarly low in Nepal, with only 15 percent of teachers having completed upper secondary education levels.46 Papua New Guinea, on the other hand, has reportedly have all of its primary teachers meeting the comparatively higher standard of post-secondary, non-tertiary degree, which include one to two years of study following upper secondary education.47

Teachers’ mastery of subject matter content

Teachers’ knowledge of the subject matter they teach is another strong predictor of student performance, even if studies show that the degree of its effects may be variable.48 Across the region, however, teacher training courses designed to improve teachers’ pedagogical skills are more common than those that build their subject matter knowledge, despite evidence pointing to the critical need for the latter.49

Findings from national assessments from select countries that obtained information on teachers’ knowledge of subject matter reveal the dire state of subject matter knowledge among teachers and need to strengthen subject matter mastery of teachers:

In Thailand, secondary school teachers were tested in their proficiency in subject tests taken by their students, with alarming results. According to the Office of Basic Education

45 UNESCO-UIS. 201146 UNESCO-UIS. 2006. Regional Profile, Teacher Supply and Demand in East Asia and Pacific.47 Ibid.48 Darling-Hammond, L. (1999, December). Teacher quality and student achievement: A review of state policy evidence. Seattle: Center for the Study of Teaching and Policy.Goldhaber, D.D., & Brewer, D.J. (2000). Does teacher certification matter? High school teacher certification status and student achievement. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 22, 129-145.Rivkin, S.G., Hanushek, E.A., & Kain, J.F. (2005, March). Teachers, schools, and academic achievement. Econometrica, 73(2), 417-458.49 Thomas, E. 2010. Teacher Policies in the Asia Pacific and other regions: A Review, Written for UNESCO :Asia Pacific Regional Bureau for Education: Seminar on Teacher Policies in the Asia Pacific, November, 2010. Bangkok, Thailand


Commission, 88 percent of nearly 4 thousand computer science teachers failed the exam. Proportion of teacher failing the exams- answering less than 59 percent of questions correctly- were similarly low in Biology (86 percent); Mathematics (84 percent); Physics (71 percent); Chemistry (64 percent) and Earth sciences (63 percent).50

Teacher aptitude tests administered in Indonesia for its primary and secondary school teachers found similarly dismal results. The average score for primary school teachers was only 38 percent. For secondary school teachers, the average score for the 12 subjects tested was 45 percent, with scores in key subjects such as math and language at 36 and 51 percent, respectively.51

Serious deficiencies in subject knowledge was also found in Vietnam, where grade 5 national assessments from 2004 showed that distribution of reading comprehension scores for teachers versus students reveals that top 12 percent of students outperformed the bottom 30 percent of teachers.

In Pakistan, grade 4 teachers were administered exams for students under the National Education Assessment System, and results revealed that approximately 3 percent of teachers scored below the mean score of students.52

Data from Vietnam reveals the close association between teacher subject matter knowledge and student performance, as seen in Figure 14 below. With increases in teachers’ mean achievement score in math, the mean score for students also increases. The finding has since triggered the government to upgrade subject mastery of teachers though in-service training and support.

Figure 14: Correlation between Teacher and Pupil Provincial Mean Scores in Math, Vietnam (2004)

Source: World Bank. 2004. Vietnam Reading and Mathematics Assessment Study. Vol. 1, Figure 5. Washington, DC: World Bank

Teaching with minimum experience

Compared to other characteristics of quality teachers, overall teacher experience may have relatively limited influence on overall student achievement. At the same time, however, studies show that initial years of teachers’ experience are crucial to improving the

50 http://www.bangkokpost.com/news/local/38353/teachers-fail-exams-on-own-subjects51 PMPTK. Directorate General for Improvement of Teachers and Education Professionals. 2008. Presentation on costs associated with the Teacher Law of 2005, Yogyakarta, Indonesia, August, 2008. Background research for World Bank, 2009. “Transforming Indonesia’s Teaching Force.”52 A. Tayyab, personal communication, Oxford, U.K., July 24, 2008. Cited in Kellaghan et al. 2009. Using the Results of a National Assessment of Educational Achievement.2009. World Bank, Washington, D.C


effectiveness of their teaching and improving student performance, regardless of whether the experience has been gained through clinical practices or induction phases.53

At the policy level, countries across the region have made progress in requiring teachers to acquire essential teaching experiences prior to entering the profession. But quality of induction programs is questionable. [Add: examples from SABER and IRA and Vegas (2007)]

Motivated teachers

Data related to teacher motivation is limited, but as previously discussed, high rates of teacher absenteeism in many countries suggest that teachers often lack the proper motivation, incentives and support mechanisms to teach and teach well. High rates of teacher turnover also point to challenges in keeping teachers motivated. [Add: country data on teacher turnover/attrition rates]

Key Issues and Challenges

To be added

There is a range of issues/challenges related to attracting, retaining and motivating high quality teachers. Challenges have particularly severe impact for teachers in disadvantaged communities.

Supply and demand gap and contract teachersIn many countries, the demand for teachers is overwhelmingly high relative to its national capacity. Countries often have neither a sufficient pool of teachers nor enough financial capacity to expand its teaching force. Thus, many countries are trying to meet the increased demands by hiring contract teachers, or also called para-teachers, who receive comparatively lower salaries than civil servant teachers. Across the region, there is considerable variation in the types of contract teachers, levels of training requirements, and their impact in the classrooms compared to civil-servant teachers. While information on the effect of contract teachers in learning achievement is relatively sparse, the generally lower skills, professional status and working condition of contract teachers suggests that overall quality of teaching and learning is likely to be sacrificed. Issues surrounding contract teachers are complex, both from a labor rights and quality of education perspectives. With many countries faced with significant and increasing supply-demand gap in teachers, the extent to which quality of contract teachers can be improved through various policy measures will have important implications for quality of education. (Add: evidence from experimental studies in India available; also see ILO study on China, India and Cambodia)

Limited performance standards and accountability

- Standards for performance lacking in terms of time and tasks required. (See examples from Indonesia and India)

53 Rivkin et al. 2005; Hanushek et al, 2005.


- Performance appraisal exists but not always reported effectively, and teachers are not aware of their own strengths and weaknesses

- Limited accountability measures

Poor working conditions

- Lack of basic resources and teaching materials

- High PTR in some regionsAcross the sub-regions, average PTRs in primary and in secondary education have progressively decreased to levels well within the recommended benchmark. However, geographical disparities in teacher deployment are apparent in countries where sub-national PTR data is available. In Bangladesh, a survey of small number of sub-districts found that PTRs can range from 36 to 93.54 In Nepal, a 2004 study found that PTR in almost half of the country’s 75 districts had ratios at or above 40, while the rest showed a much lower average; the same study found that Nepal also had one of the largest regional disparities in PTRs among the 38 developing countries studied, with the region with the highest PTR being 16 times that of the region with the lowest PTR. Among countries with relatively low national average PTRs, Malaysia and Thailand also have comparatively small regional disparities. Bangladesh and Cambodia, on the other hand, have relatively high disparities.55

Figure 15: Sub-national PTR in primary, select countries

Source: EFA GMR 2008 and National EFA MA datasets

Geographical disparities often depict urban-rural divides, with rural areas often having PTRs higher than those of urban areas due to either lower demand for school or lower population densities. However, lower PTRs in rural does not indicate better equity, as composition of the teaching force tend to be lower in quality than that of urban schools. Available data shows that teachers with little or no training tend to be concentrated in rural regions. In India, the proportion of locally-hired, fixed-term contract teachers who are not professionally trained is

54 Ahmed, M., Ahmed, K. S., Islam Khan, N. and Ahmed, R. 2007. Access to Education in Bangladesh: Country Analytic Review of Primary and Secondary Education. Brighton, UK/Dhaka, University of Sussex, Sussex School of Education, Centre for International Education, Consortium for Research on Educational Access, Transitions & Equity/BRAC University, Institute of Educational Development.

55 Sherman, J.D. and J. M. Poirier. 2007. Educational equity and public policy: Comparing results from 16 countries UIS Working Paper No. 6. Retrieved June 2007 from http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0014/001495/149523e.pdf. Pg40


http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0014/001495/149523e.pdf

much higher in rural schools than urban schools, as the limited number of trained teachers favor urban schools with better working conditions.56 Also, PTRs mask the fact that many schools in rural areas are operating on double shifts or multi-grade classrooms, both of which can significantly hamper the amount of contact time between the teacher and students compared to full-shift, single grade classrooms of same PTR. In Cambodia and Lao PDR, a significant proportion of rural schools operate in multi-grade settings, which requires comparatively better trained teachers who can effectively manage classrooms of different grades, if children are to reach similar levels of learning as their peers in single-grade classes. With geographic location of families often coinciding with their socioeconomic status, children from poorer families are more likely to be concentrated in rural schools compared to their peers from richer families.

Limited professional support - Limited instructional leadership by principals (principals with no pedagogical leadership

capacity and no decision-making authority over instruction)- Teacher autonomy is limited. Effects of School based management, tried in many

countries, have shown particular challenges in some cases, because teachers do not feel professional autonomy is protected.57

- Inadequate time for collaborations among teachers58

Limited teacher incentives- Inadequate relative salary that makes it challenging to meet demands for quality teachers,

particularly where there are shortages.59

- Lack of recognition for quality teaching- Salary and career advancement not linked to performance

Weak teacher education and CPD- There is often an imbalance in subject content, practicum and practice in teacher training

programs. (See E. Thomas report; Greany, V., and T. Kelleghan 2008)- In-service development programs often simply serve remedial functions rather than

continual development of capacities based on emerging concepts and technologies. Also, frequent curricular changes and policies can over-burden teachers and can be de-motivating, particularly for veteran teachers (See evidence from DFID surveys).

- Schemes are often elaborate but there is considerable fragmentation in terms of different responsible persons involved, including curriculum departments, higher education institutions, ministries or donor and non-governmental agencies. There is lack of coherence in pre-service and in-service training, with limited opportunity for synergy that can be gained from combining the lessons from practice and latest research findings about teacher education. (See UNESCO-IRA teacher status review) As a result, often a mismatch of skills and needs is lacking in training, with particularly limited strategies for developing knowledge and skills for the teaching in minority languages, MGT settings, reading in early grades, etc. (Some evidence on gender-sensitive teaching; MGT; MLE, etc)

56 Govinda, R. and Bandyopadhyay, M. 2008. Access to Elementary Education in India: Country Analytical Review. Brighton, UK/New Delhi, University of Sussex, Sussex School of Education, Centre for International Education, Consortium for Research on Educational Access, Transitions & Equity/National University of Educational Planning and Administration.

57 Wei, R.C., Andree, A., and Darling-Hammond, L. 2009. How nations invest in teachers. Educational Leadership, 66 (5), 28-33.58 ibid59 Vegas, E. 2007. Teacher labor markets in developing countries.


3.5 Assessment systems

Student learning assessment is a key component of quality education, providing critical measure of what and how much children are learning. Assessment systems60 also help inform the design and implementation of education policies and practices, ranging from teaching and learning practices, to identifying children lagging behind and related factors, to improving relevant conditions for learning, ultimately pointing to quality improvements needed to ensure effective learning opportunities for all.61 As countries strive to improve student learning outcomes, there has been growing attention paid to strengthening student assessment systems, encompassing policies, practices and instruments to derive and use information on learning and achievement.

Overall, progress has varied among countries in the Asia Pacific region, with marked division between developed and low/ middle-income countries with respect to three main types of assessment activities.

Large-scale assessments at the system level allow assessment on the overall performance of the education, providing information on the achievement levels with respects to targeted learning goals and the related, contributing factors.62 Well-designed large-scale assessments can also generate rich data and information with which to diagnose key areas of strengths and weaknesses in education system, whether it is related to teachers, school inputs, management, etc.

Primary examples of large-scale assessments include international assessments such as PISA, TIMSS and PIRLS, which are administered in three to five year cycles for specific domains in reading, mathematics and sciences. By employing standardized tests developed according to internationally defined expectations of learning levels, international assessments help facilitate comparing achievement levels across countries, monitor variations over time with respect to changes in policies and practice. Most developed countries in the East Asia region, and increasingly, a few middle-income countries such as Indonesia and Thailand, have been participating in international assessments in increasing frequency, using results as basis for educational reform.63 To data, however, most developing countries, particularly in South Asia and Pacific sub-regions, remain largely absent from these studies. With major international assessments studies designed primarily to assess student achievement levels in developed countries, regional assessment studies can provide useful alternative for sub-regional comparative assessments; there is, however, no equivalent in the Asia Pacific region. 64

60 “Assessment systems” is used in this Note to refer to a group of policies, practices and tools for generating and using information on student learning and achievement, including examinations.61Greany, V., and T. Kelleghan. 2008. Assessing National Achievement Levels in Education. World Bank: Washington, D.C.62 ibid63 Postlewaite, T. N. 2004. Monitoring Educational Achievement. Paris, UNESCO International Institute of Educational Planning. (Fundamentals of Educational Planning, 81.)64 Examples of regional learning assessment studies include : Latin American Laboratory for the Assessment of Quality in Education (LLECE), the Southern and Eastern African Consortium for Monitoring Educational Quality (SACMEQ) and the ‘Programme d’analyse des systèmes éducatifs de la CONFEMEN’ (PASEC).


Table 4: Participation in International Assessments in AP countries, since 2000PISA TIMSS PIRLS

2000 2003 2006 2009 1995 1999 2003 2007 2001 2006Australia X x x x x x x xChina xChinese Taipei x x x x x xHong Kong (China)

X x x x x x x x x x

Indonesia X x x x x x x xIran Islamic Rep x x x x xJapan X x x x x x x XKazakhstan XMacao (China) x xMalaysia x x xNew Zealand X x x x x x xRep. of Korea X x x x x x x XPhilippines x X xSingapore x x x x x x xShanghai (China)

x

Thailand x x x x x x x

Large-scale assessments are also conducted at national levels, and while results generated from their varied instruments and design are not comparable across countries, they provide useful country-wide and school-specific information about learning outcomes according to nationally defined standards. As seen in Figure 16 below, the frequency in the use of national assessments have increased dramatically in all sub-regions in Asia Pacific, with over 60 percent of countries in the East Asia and Pacific region conducting national assessments. There is wide variation in the rigor of design, implementation, analysis or use of national assessments, but the increasing effort to conduct assessments is an encouraging sign of the growing recognition on importance of assessments in quality improvements. National assessments are similar to international assessments in that they are intended to describe level of achievements of a whole education system for a select age or grade level, rather than individual students. The main difference lies in that national assessments are subject-oriented and curriculum-based, according to nationally intended curriculum of a particular level, which is helpful in identifying areas of deficiency that need government’s policy attention.65 National assessments also facilitate highlighting factors related to learning that might be specific to the country’s context- such as ethnicity and language- as there can be flexibility in the content of demographic and other background surveys that are often conducted as part of the assessments.

Figure 16: Percent of countries with at least one national assessment between 1995-1999 and 2000-2006, by sub-region

65 Using Assessment to Improve the Quality of Education, UNESCO: IIEP, Paris 2001 www.unesco.org/iiep


Source: Benavot and Tanner (2006)

Classroom assessments carried out in the course of regular classroom activities can provide immediate, real-time information on student learning achievement to help inform teaching and learning practices in the classrooms. There are a variety of instruments and procedures that are used in classroom assessments, and there are strong evidence linking effective classroom assessments lead to improved learning outcomes, with particularly large gains seen among low-achieving students.66 [Add: information on progress/gaps in types and frequency of classroom assessments]

Classroom assessments are particularly useful for attaining insight into learning levels in early grades in many lower-income countries, where national assessments are infrequent and largely devoted to assessing mid to upper primary grade achievement levels. Assessment of learning in the early grades, however, remain a major challenge in many developing countries, with generally low capacity of teachers to design, implement and use effective assessments that can inform instructional practices. In recent years, however, the central role of learning in the foundational years- particularly in reading- has garnered increasing recognition, and correspondingly, efforts to assess reading levels have been growing. As described in box below, varied forms of early grade reading assessments (EGRA) are being piloted in a number of the East Asia and Pacific countries, and the introduction of tools and instruments to assess early grade reading has been noteworthy. [Add Box: EGRA can be both national and classroom-based; pros and cons of EGRA; examples of country implementation]

Finally, examinations are used as a means to identify progression of individual students through the education system, whether it is through certification or selection. For instance, results are used to decide on the promotion of a student to the next grade level; assign to a particular type of schools and programs; graduate or gain admission to university.

66 Black and William. 1998. “Assessment and classroom learning.” Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy and Practice, 5(1), pg. 7-73.


Examination results also complement assessment studies by indicating system effectiveness. 67

In the Asia Pacific region, many countries, including Brunei Darussalam, Fiji, Indonesia, Iran, Mongolia, Singapore and Sri Lanka conduct examinations at the end of primary, lower secondary and upper secondary levels, to certify completion of programs and to select and control access to next level and type of schooling or workplace. In other countries, including Australia, Bangladesh, India and Pakistan, examinations at the end of primary for the purposes of controlling secondary enrolment have been abolished with lower secondary education becoming compulsory, although a combination of exams and assessments may still be used to identify school placements.

Another common examination pattern is one in which examination is primarily conducted for admittance into university programs. While some examinations assess specific curricular-based achievement at the end of upper secondary, as in China, Japan and Kazakhstan, others assess standardized aptitude that measure general cognitive abilities, as in the case of Republic of Korea and Kyrgyzstan.

Generally, examinations are widely used and occupy great importance across the region, as they serve as a gateway for students to good schools, to prestigious universities, to good jobs and to greater opportunities.68 Such high stakes nature of exams, however, can result in a range of commonly associated concerns, requiring close scrutiny in the ensuring robust quality of examinations and appropriate use of results.

Key issues and challengesTo be added

As discussed, there has been visible progress across countries in investing in the development of assessment systems that help countries to diagnose the quality of learning outcomes and feed back into quality education. However, key issues and challenges remain both at the level of assessment activities and at the system level.

At activity level-Limited domains of assessment: International assessments are largely limited to a few, well-defined domains such as language and mathematics, and rarely examine subject areas such as history, arts, and geography, which are clearly defined education objectives in many countries. While there is scope to assess subject matter achievement levels through national assessments, assessments of most developing countries also remain largely limited to language and mathematics, primarily due to limited cost and expertise. Similarly, assessments for critical, non-cognitive skills like values and attitudes remain weak, presenting difficulties in monitoring and improving outcomes on those measures.

67 Hill, Peter. 2010. Asia and the Pacific-Pacific Secondary Education System Review Series No. 1: Examination Systems. Bangkok: UNESCO Bangkok.68 Ibid.


-Technical gaps: Reliability and validity of assessments need improvements, particularly for national assessments and exams and classroom-based assessments, due to limited technical expertise of systems and teachers. International assessments are generally of higher quality, but the value of information can be limited in countries where the range of achievement levels is significantly below the benchmark, making it difficult to identify variations in achievement levels.

At systems level

-Weak enabling environment: Effective assessment systems require at least a policy framework that mandates regular, systematic assessment activities, allocation of appropriate levels of budget, and teachers equipped with requisite skills and techniques.69 In East Asia and Pacific sub-regions, recent findings from the Benchmarking Education Systems for Result pilot suggest that most countries have adequate policy framework and budget for assessment systems. However, based on available evidence on the generally low quality of teacher trainings, teacher skills and techniques to conduct assessments remain weak.

-Examinations: Examination policies require particular attention in the Asia Pacific region, as there are tendencies for over-competition to lead to adverse effects such as cheating, corruption, instructional practices focusing on excessive drilling, and commercial tutoring.70 Dynamic shifts in educational and labor market demand and supply also make it challenging to ensure relevant examination policies that maximize the learning potential of individual learners. This can be particularly important for low-achieving students with disadvantaged backgrounds, for whom sufficient time for learning should be provided to allow opportunities to catch up on learning deficits. [insert examples?]

- Information use: The value of assessment systems hinges not only on the quality of the information that is generated but also in ways the information is communicated to different stakeholders for continuous quality improvements. Whether it is to parents, to the broader public, to schools, to policymakers or to media, information need to be conveyed better through appropriate channels to promote increased motivation for learning, accountability for results and continuous quality improvements.71

4 Priorities and Strategies

To be added69 Clarke, M. 2011. “Framework for Building and effective assessment system.” Discussion Paper. World Bank, Washington, DC.70 Hill. 2010.71 See Kellaghan, T., Greany, V., and Murray, T. 2009. Using Results of a National Assessment of Educational Achievement. National Assessments of Educational Achievement. Vol 5. World Bank, Washington, DC.


1. Focus on learning outcomes

A. Establish appropriate assessment systems, including early grade reading

B. Generate knowledge and evidence on strategies to improving learning outcomes

2. Supporting effective teaching and learning

A. Improve working conditions of teachers-Sufficient pay-Provision of adequate resources-Provision of instructional leadership

B. Effective teacher training and development-Improve trainings to that they help meet competency standards (reading, pedagogy v content)-Induction and collaboration-Continued professional development that is coherent with pre-service education.

3. School management -Establish appropriate performance standards for improved accountability-Improve professional autonomy-Improve community participation and school climate

4. Targeted policies for equity in learning-Match skills and needs for teachers and students, from training to deployment to development, in particular-Address demand-side barriers affecting to opportunities to learn


Documents

Introduction to End-of-Decade Web viewEFA End-of-Decade Note on Quality (Goal 6) for Asia Pacific Region. TABLE OF CONTENTS. 1Introduction to End-of-Decade Notes2. 2Defining Quality: