International Journal of Educational Development 40 (2015) 231–236

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

International Journal of Educational Development

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ijedudev

Learning, pedagogy and the post-2015 education and development

agenda
Angeline Barrett a, Yusuf Sayed b,c, Michele Schweisfurth d,*, Leon Tikly a
a
University of Bristol, UK
b
Cape Peninsula University of Technology, South Africa
c
Centre for International Education, University of Sussex, UK
d
Robert Owen Centre for Educational Change, University of Glasgow, UK

It now seems almost inevitable that by the end of the year a Global Compact report propelled the learning agenda forward,
target for learning will have a central place within a renewed set of whilst the Learning Metrics Task Force, later coordinated by
Education for All goals and highly probable that it will also appear Brookings, put forward a framework for identifying what learning
within a development goal for education. For 15 years the to monitor. Yusuf Sayed compiled the report on a global
Millennium Development Goal (MDG) for education has been consultation on EFA post-2015 (UNICEF/UNESCO, 2013), con-
narrowly focused on universalising access to primary education ducted by UNESCO and UNICEF. Pauline Rose was director of the
and for 25 years the Education for All agenda has also acted to latest EFA Global Monitoring Report, Teaching and Learning:
prioritise expansion of formal primary education. The two special Achieving Quality for All (UNESCO, 2014), which has helped to
issues, IJED (see also Mcgrath et al., 2014) has dedicated to what is sustain a focus on learning in the more immediate lead up to 2015.
now termed the ‘post-2015 debate’, together with a number of The UK Department for International Development has been a
articles appearing in open issues, will be an indicator to readers in vocal advocate for monitoring learning outcomes and their
future years of the excitement generated by the opportunity 2015 perspectives is represented by Berry et al. (2014). Much evidence
affords to review, revise and revitalise the global development for the need for attention to learning, particularly in lower primary
agenda. In reviewing progress against the existing EFA goals, one of years, has come from the results of Early Grade Reading
the greatest disappointments has been steadily growing evidence Assessments from countries around the world, a tool that Dubeck
that whilst many more children are completing six years of and Gove at RTI have been involved in developing and promoting.
primary education, many are leaving school barely able to read and Along with perpectives from a range of people engaged in the
write in the language of instruction. Consequently, 2015 is widely debates on learning, this issue therefore captures some key
seen as an opportunity to shift the focus of Education for All from thinking that has influenced the learning agenda within education
access to school to the learning that takes place in schools. This and development.
special issue takes a look at how learning has been conceptualised Learning, as Alexander points out in this special issue, is a
and deployed in the post-2015 debate, as well as the questions that complex, culturally situated activity. It is fostered through the
have most vexed the debate around how learning can be measured, pedagogic relationship between a teacher and group of learners.
monitored and targeted on a global scale. There is a long tradition of scholarship within the field of education
producing a rich literature on learning and pedagogy. However,
1. The new learning agenda this has received little attention from the international develop-
ment community (exceptions within this journal have been
Some of the key actors in promoting the learning agenda are Sriprakash, 2010; Murphy and Wolfenden, 2013). Consequently,
represented amongst the authors in this special issue. Lant ‘learning’ within the post-2015 education debate is ill-defined,
Pritchett was amongst a team of economists of education that distanced from discussion of pedagogy as debate and focused
suggested the idea of a global learning goal in 2006 (Filmer et al., mainly on questions relating to the outcomes of learning – which
2006). Rebecca Winthrop and Allison Anderson are associated with outcomes we should care about and how can they be measured.
the team of researchers at the Brookings Institute, who collabo- Contributions from academics highlight this difficulty and
rated on the influential report, ‘A Global Compact on Learning’ problematise the new learning agenda through positioning it
(Center for Universal Education at Brookings, 2011), which was against the longer tradition of scholarship on learning and
guided by experts from across key international institutions. The pedagogy across low-, middle- and high-income countries.
In this editorial, we start by outlining the place of learning
within the post-2015 debate. This is an ongoing, fast-moving
* Corresponding author. Tel.: +44 141 330 4445. debate that is conducted within and beyond parallel UN processes
E-mail address: [email protected] (M. Schweisfurth). for determining, influencing and formulating the post-2015 goals.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijedudev.2014.11.003
0738-0593/Crown Copyright ß 2014 Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
232 A. Barrett et al. / International Journal of Educational Development 40 (2015) 231–236

Articles in this special issue reflect the point in time in which they well in assessments of learning than their wealthier peers. This has
were written. The next section therefore highlights the specific generated a demand for targets that compare measures of
proposals and documents that are the most recent and have participation and learning for the least and most privileged
received the most widespread recognition at the time of writing within a given country (Education for All Global Monitoring
and sets the new learning agenda against the context of the Report, 2013).
broader post-2015 development debate. The second part of the At the point of writing, the Proposal of the Open Working Group
editorial provides an overview of the special issue. for Sustainable Development Goals is the most up to date high-level
proposal for a set of Development Goals. The Muscat Agreement, an
2. Learning within an expanded development agenda outcome from a meeting hosted by UNESCO in May 2014 (Global
Education for All Meeting, 2014), is the most widely recognised
The increasing centrality of learning is a major shift in the proposal for a set of EFA goals. So we will now briefly compare the
architecture of international goals. However, it is not the only place of learning within these two documents (see Ahmed and
change and sits alongside a gradual extending the EFA agenda and Sayed’s contribution to this issue for a more comprehensive
a significant broadening out of the overarching development comparison). The Open Working Group places the education goal
agenda. The Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) will be fourth in their list of 17 goals and states it as, ‘‘Ensure inclusive and
replaced by a set of Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). The equitable quality education and promote life-long learning
MDGs had an overarching purpose of poverty reduction, largely opportunities for all’’ (Open Working Group for Sustainable
conceptualised as a problem of human development susceptible to Development Goals, 2014: 8) The ten targets associated with this
largely economic solutions. As the threat of climate change looms goal between them cover all educational levels from early
larger, development is conceptualised within the SDGs as childhood development and care to scholarships for Higher
environmental and social as well as economic. It is unsurprising, Education. Learning appears in the very first target: ‘‘by 2030,
therefore, that proposals for the SDGs set out a more complex ensure that all girls and boys complete free, equitable and quality
architecture of goals compared to the eight MDGs. The High-Level primary and secondary education leading to relevant and
Panel of Eminent Persons on the Post-2015 Development Agenda effective learning outcomes’’ (Open Working Group for Sustain-
(2013) suggested 12 goals, with a target for youth education and able Development Goals, 2014: 8). Quality is also addressed
training appearing under the goal for sustainable livelihoods and through a target focused on the ‘‘learning environment’’ within
equitable growth. At the time of writing, the most current and ‘‘education facilities’’ and a target for teacher supply. The Muscat
prominent proposal for a set of SDGs is that of the Open Working Agreement endorses the Open Working Group’s overarching goal
Group for Sustainable Development Goals (2014). This group has for education but sets out a shorter list of seven targets. The basic
put forward a proposal for 17 goals each with between five and 19 education target is expressed as, ‘‘By 2030, all girls and boys
associated targets. The education goal has ten targets and there complete free and compulsory quality basic education of at least
is, in addition, a target for youth education and training under 9 years and achieve relevant learning outcomes, with particular
the economic growth and employment goal. Health education is attention to gender equality and the most marginalized’’ (Global
also mentioned under the health and well-being goal and Education for All Meeting, 2014: 3). Like the Open Working
education for climate change under the combat climate change Group document, it includes a target for teachers, however, with
goal. Whilst the finalised goals, when they are announced, may its more concise set of targets does not cover the learning
be expected to be more pared down and less expansive, these environment.
comprehensive proposals can serve as a reference point for Neither the Open Working Group proposal nor Muscat
debate around what areas of learning should be prioritised and elaborates on what ‘‘relevant learning outcomes’’ might be. A
monitored post-2015. feature of the Muscat targets, however, is that they are expressed
So far, the EFA debate has not engaged extensively with broader in terms of the purposes for education. Hence, the literacy target
SDG debates. It has, however, become more nuanced, in no small becomes, ‘‘all youth and at least x% of adults reach a proficiency
part due to the contribution of the EFA Global Monitoring Report, level in literacy and numeracy sufficient to fully participate in
which has gone beyond presenting data on progress against the six society, with particular attention to girls and women and the most
EFA goals to identify and discuss key issues that influence their marginalized’’ (Global Education for All Meeting, 2014: 3, our
achievement. Some of the articles in the earlier post-2015 IJED emphasis). Whilst the Open Working Group’s proposal positions
special issue focused on proposals for skills sub-goals (Palmer, education within an overarching vision for sustainable develop-
2014; Valiente, 2014), which enjoys greater prominence than in ment, Muscat also refers to education for peace, global citizenship
the current set of goals. The emphasis on equity in the post-2015 and sustainable development. Consistent with the recommenda-
debate has equal prominence with learning and is closely linked to tions of the Thematic Consultation (UNICEF/UNESCO, 2013),
concerns around learning. In targeting universal primary educa- Muscat calls for a rights-based approach.
tion, the education MDG did aim for equality of provision, and As well as setting out a proposal for an EFA agenda post-2015,
other EFA goals set ambitions for steps towards greater equality at the Muscat Agreement is unequivocal in allocating responsibility for
other educational levels. However, targets did not differentiate moving the EFA debate forward to UNESCO. It calls for the
between easier to reach and the more marginalised groups, hence development of minimum benchmarks and indicators for the
incentivizing investment in expanding enrolments for the easier to targets and endorses ‘‘UNESCO’s leadership and coordination in
reach ‘low hanging fruit’. The 2010 EFA Global Monitoring Report facilitating the development of the post-2015 education agenda in
drew attention to the very low levels of participation amongst the collaboration with the EFA partners’’ (UNICEF/UNESCO, 2013).
most marginalised groups, which were often masked within Indeed, the proposed targets carry the imprint of the intellectual
figures for national enrolment ratios. Recent Global Monitoring work done by the EFA Global Monitoring Reports, for example
Reports have also presented findings from analysis of data from through repeated use of the term ‘‘marginalisation’’, which is the
large-scale surveys such as the Programme for International subject of the 2010 Report (UNESCO, 2010) and should be
Students Assessment (PISA) and more informal national scale interpreted in conjunction with a reading of other UNESCO
surveys such as Uwezo in East Africa and the Annual State of publications, such as those associated with the Decade for
Education Report in India. These show that children living in the Education for Sustainable Development and the report of the
poorest and most marginalised communities perform much less Thematic consultation.
 A. Barrett et al. / International Journal of Educational Development 40 (2015) 231–236 233

3. The special issue light of existing research on inclusive pedagogical practice, offering
a critical perspective both on the gaps between this research and
In the context of these international discussions, and the the available manuals, and on the validity of this research in the
ambitions of this special issue, the eleven papers in this collection context of classroom realities in low-income countries.
in various ways all approach the question of how learning and The interaction of pedagogy with curricular expectations, and
teaching fit in to the post-2015 agenda. The perspectives and how this affects learning outcomes, is the focus of the fifth article.
concerns highlighted by these authors reflect some of the fault Lant Pritchett and Amanda Beatty develop a model that shows how
lines that mark deliberations at this crucial point in the process. student skill (their potential learning) and instructional levels (the
The articles fall into three broad categories: one cluster of papers learning expected by the curriculum) require synchronisation. The
which explores teaching and learning at conceptual and practical simulation demonstrates that where there is a gap between them –
levels; one grouping which considers the question of measurement particularly where teachers need to move too fast to cover learning
and how it relates to learning and the post-2015 agenda; and a material – the result can be less learning overall. The mismatch
further set which is concerned with international agency helps to explain why learning profiles are so flat in some
responses to the challenges posed by the post-MDG era. developing countries: that is, why so many children are learning
so little despite spending time in school.
3.1. Learning (and teaching): from paradigm to practice Collectively these articles point to a series of fundamental
issues that the post-2015 discussions need to take on board in
An agenda for learning post-2015 needs to be underpinned by order to offer a promising agenda that is achievable, that works
an informed and in-depth understanding of what learning is and with the realities of teaching and learning in developing countries,
what it could be. Yet, compared to questions of inputs or outcomes, and that respects both individual rights and social justice. Firstly,
there is relatively little attention paid to the concept or to its Tikly, Alexander and Schweisfurth’s articles particularly highlight
manifestation in the pedagogical processes of developing country the need for a conceptualisation of learning that embraces a wider
classrooms. Five of the papers in this special issue address this gap range of perspectives than the empiricist and functionalist
by theorising learning and the methodologies used to research, frameworks which currently dominate. This means going back
evaluate and monitor it, by engaging with the ways in which to the ontological and epistemological basics in understanding
learning is currently under-conceptualised, or by setting out in learning. While such paradigmatic questions may seem academic,
practical terms what improved learning processes might look like. in practical terms, these have implications for how teaching and
The first article in this edition, by Leon Tikly, explores the issue learning are researched, the kinds of goals that are set, and how
of learning in ontological and epistemological terms, arguing for a these are monitored. The prevailing argument is for a more
critical realist perspective as an alternative to, and reconciliation inclusive and pluralistic approach which respects the integrity of
of, empiricist and interprevist approaches to researching learning. learning as an integrated part of a complex system that includes all
The article advocates epistemological and methodological plural- aspects of education situated in context.
ism and synthesis, and abductive forms of inference. Tikly This widened perspective reveals connections between discrete
considers the limitations of the empiricist ‘what works’ agenda parts of any education ecosystem. Schweisfurth draws on the
and explores how a critical realist perspective can help to reveal concept of a ‘pedagogical nexus’ (Hufton and Elliott, 2000) to
‘what works, for who and under what circumstances’. explain the interdependence of components shaping, for example,
In the following article, Robin Alexander examines the use of student and teacher motivation, while Tikly argues for a
indicators of quality education in the influential UNESCO EFA ‘laminated’ view which shows how different levels of a system
Global Monitoring Reports. Based on this analysis, he argues that are nested together and interact. Alexander’s call for a vision of
the methodology is grounded in a limited conception of quality educational quality which extends beyond the outcomes it
which gives inadequate attention to pedagogical processes, and generates and engages with pedagogy as a significant factor aligns
which uses a narrow range of indicators and proxies. This paints a with this. A further example of these connections within an
very limited picture on which to base recommendations for the education system is provided by Pritchett and Beatty’s paper,
next stage of global goal-setting. He asks whether ‘what is truly which demonstrates how an overly ambitious curriculum has a
transformative in teaching and learning has been adequately negative effect on pedagogy and therefore on learning outcomes.
captured in the EFA monitoring process, the literature on which it There is a risk in focusing on only one of these factors while
has drawn, and the recommendations it has produced’, ultimately ignoring others will mean missing these important connections.
arguing for a deepened and methodologically open and inclusive Given that several of these papers argue for a deeper, more
approach to understanding teaching and learning post-2015, in critical, and better informed engagement with pedagogy, an
order to make a real difference. important starting point is a responsive vision of what good
The third article, by Michele Schweisfurth, also considers the pedagogy should be. Good pedagogy, Schweisfurth argues, is an
place of pedagogy in the post-2015 era, arguing that focusing on enabling goal that makes learning goals possible. None of these
learning without giving due attention to pedagogy creates space papers is prescriptive in this regard, but they do point to evidence
for misunderstandings and for backwash effects from the testing of on particular pedagogical forms, including dialogic teaching
learning target attainment. The article sets out a particular vision (Alexander); learner-centred education (reconceptualised by
of good pedagogy drawing on principles of learner-centredness, Schweisfurth as learnING-centred pedagogy within a rights
based on the evidence on learning effectiveness in conjunction framework); and inclusive pedagogy for a wide range of learners
with an emphasis on the rights of learners. It sets out these including those with special educational needs (le Fanu). Part of
arguments within a broadly interactionist framework, situating this broader visioning of learning also includes attention to a wider
goal-setting and monitoring as part of the ‘pedagogical nexus’ range of learning outcomes. It also demands attention to the kinds
within which teaching and learning take place. of outcomes desired, for whom, and in what circumstances, and
In the fourth article, Guy le Fanu focuses specifically on teaching when and how they might be achieved and assessed. Inevitably,
and learning in relation to children with special educational needs. opening up the question of outcomes and situating learning within
His methodology involves an analysis of manuals for working with its pedagogical nexus makes testing and measurement challeng-
such children, as produced by a range of international develop- ing, if a learning goal were to set universal benchmarks applicable
ment agencies for use in the global South. He analyses these in the to all contexts.
234 A. Barrett et al. / International Journal of Educational Development 40 (2015) 231–236

3.2. Testing times for all? by Bartlett and by Dubeck and Grove. Dubeck and Gove, who are
employed by RTI, developers and ‘owners’ of the EGRA model,
Whilst debates abound about what learning means and which provide an account of the value of EGRA, responding to criticism of
theoretical frameworks underpin the concept, its measurement its approach and methodology. For them, EGRA offers a potentially
has become an important and contested issue. Four articles in useful approach to measuring learning in the post-2015 agenda.
this Special Issue directly address the measurement of learning They are opposed to what they see as the narrow, psychometrically
and reflect the multiple, contested and contradictory under- driven approaches to measuring learning in the post-2015
standings of the subject. The four articles share a common view discourse and concerned at the narrowness of the notion of
that, whichever way the goals are cast and the targets set, ‘equivalency’ in measuring learning embedded in the work of the
learning is core to the agenda and that learning needs to be LMTF.
measured. In direct contradiction to the article by Dubeck and Gove,
The articles by Rose and by Winthrop and Anderson adopt a Bartlett raises a series of fundamental objections to and criticism of
macro perspective on the issue of learning. Situating their analysis the EGRA model. She argues that EGRA is not only theoretically
in a broad generalised review of the current EFA and MDG flawed, but also that its methodological approach is insufficiently
frameworks, they end up arguing, albeit for differing reasons and robust. Amongst her critiques are that EGRA fails to account for
with differing proposals, that the policy traction of the post-2015 home background as a key factor in reading, that it has at its core
agenda lies in developing clear and precise measures of learning. a narrow conceptualisation of reading as a series of discrete
Rose (p. 8) in her article notes ‘. . .avoiding measurement of tasks and activities, that it ignores writing, and that it is a model
learning is not desirable. This means that there would be no way of primarily based on English, neglecting other languages where
knowing whether an education system is enabling all children to there is, for example, a more consistent correspondence
learn basic skills. . ..’. This view resonates with that of Winthrop between sound–symbol. This article also usefully recounts
and Anderson that if a learning goal is not tracked globally and, by the historical emergence of EGRA and its sponsorship by large
implication, no clear measures are developed, then ‘. . .the development agencies, particularly USAID. In direct contrast to
education community is likely to have the question decided for the article by Dubeck and Gove, she questions the value of this
it by those who are not well versed with the issues’. The model of literacy and measurement of reading as one aspect of
imperatives of necessity, and accountability are yoked together learning.
in an argument for ensuring that clear measures of learning are Several observations emerge from the conception and
developed with urgency by the education community (assumedly measures of learning suggested by these four articles. First,
by the international education community). notwithstanding the differences in argument, there is some
Whilst recognizing the pitfalls and unintended consequences of agreement that learning should be measured and tracked
measuring learning, Rose’s paper, nonetheless, suggests that there globally, with a focus on the basics of literacy and numeracy.
is a need to have globally agreed goals and measurement of In a sense, this echoes the reasoning of the South African
learning. She advocates measures that track progress towards the government policy on performance, which suggests that ‘what
achievement of global minimum standards for any child at the end gets measured, gets done’ and what’s funded, gets done. Yet, it is
of primary school, recognizing that not all children are in school. As crucial that what gets measured be valued and meaningful. To
such, she proposes a measure of learning which ensures that measure only those outcomes of learning that are easy or
children in primary school (and also those not in school) reach a relatively convenient to measure and quantify may result, as
basic level of performance in numeracy and literacy. A global target some of the articles point out, in an impoverished notion of
and measure of learning the basics, she suggests, should not learning. Moreover, there is a real risk that, over time, a focus on
preclude countries from setting more ambitious and challenging the basics de-prioritises and de-legitimises a more expansive
targets above a minimum benchmark. She further argues that any view of education quality and learning, resulting in a narrow
measure of learning should have a strong focus on equity, therefore pedagogy for the poor.
tracking those who are disadvantaged, setting specific sub-targets Second, underlying many of the arguments about learning is the
and, by implication, measures of learning for those who are view that measurement is important in assuring accountability.
marginalised. The accountability argument, most prominent in the article by
Winthrop and Anderson mirror the need for caution about Rose, is a common refrain in discussion of measures of learning.
setting measures of learning, as discussed in the article by Rose. Clearly, accountability is important, and national governments
They recount the experiences of the Learning Metrics Task (and certainly the international community) should be held to
Forces (LMTF) as a case of a coordinated international effort to account for the learning of all children and youth. However,
develop a conceptualization of learning and appropriate accountability regimes require the confidence and trust of those
corresponding measures. The LMTF proposes a hybrid model who are implementing them. National governments and, more
of target setting and measurement of learning in which some fundamentally, teachers and schools should therefore be in the
measures of learning are set and measured globally with others driver’s seat in developing measures of accountability that are
managed at the national level. Within this model there are seven politically acceptable, professionally sound, and administratively
measures of learning, two of which are related to issues of manageable. It is important to recognise that, while policy traction
access while five relate to reading, numeracy, readiness to learn, and accountability provided by global targets and tracked
citizenship, and breadth of learning opportunities. They address measurements comprise one necessary condition for ensuring
the thorny issue of who or which organisation should be that learning takes place, they are not a substitute for clear and
responsible for collecting data on measurements of learning, committed education policy reforms undertaken by national
given the multiple and overlapping institutions involved governments and focused on the attainment of social justice in
including IEA, OECD, and SACMEQ. They propose some kind and through education.
of ‘international platform where data is made freely available’ Third, any discussion of learning and its measurement should
which, though important, skirts the issue of which institution be framed within an understanding of education quality. In this
should take responsibility. special issue, several articles speak to the need for a more enriched
The broad debates about measures of learning are concretised and holistic understanding of education quality. As the articles in
in two discussions of the Early Grade Reading Assessment (EGRA) the first section have highlighted, such an understanding of
 A. Barrett et al. / International Journal of Educational Development 40 (2015) 231–236 235

education quality and, consequently, measures of learning should 3.3. Learning and teaching from the perspectives of international
have, at their heart, improving teacher pedagogy and student development agencies: compliance or challenging conventional
learning. In the discourse on measuring learning, there is a real wisdom?
danger of losing sight of the idea that improving learning does not
come about by assessment and the frequency of assessment (Sayed International agencies will play a key role in the post-2015
and Khanjee, 2013). Children do not learn simply because they are education and development agenda, inasmuch as their policies,
assessed - they learn if assessment information results in changes actions and priorities have shaped the evolution of the EFA goals
and improvements in pedagogy. Thus surveys of learning may have and MDGs agreed on in 2000, as several articles in this special
limited policy purchase if national educators cannot infer from edition make clear. This is why it is important to understand and
them how to make improvements in classroom practice. This may analyse their policies as practices of power in a globalised world.
be especially the case for international surveys if national Two articles in this edition consider how the Department for
governments have little invested in the surveys or Ministries of International Development (DFID) and UNESCO speak to the
Education have limited in-house capacity to analyse and interpret agency discourses of learning and teaching.
data for themselves. The article by Berry et al. outlines how DFID, as a leading
Fourth, it is evident that whatever the targets and associated international agency, positions itself within the education quality
measures of learning are, they should be suited to context. All agenda. Specifically it outlines their understanding of the notion of
the four articles speak to the need for setting targets and learning and how this informs the organisation’s development
associated measurements suited to national context. Yet, some priorities and funding patterns. Particular attention is paid to how
of the biggest learning challenges are in high-population, the evidence about what works in learning shapes development
federal and semi-federal country settings. Clearly, the notion priorities and funding. The article also calls for greater investment
of context in measures of learning should take into account in research and signals the organisation’s intention to fund such
intra-country differences as well. Also needed is a sense of research.
ownership by governments. An international survey that is The article by Sayed and Ahmed considers the notion of
designed and analysed remotely may have less meaning to teaching and learning in relation to the education quality agenda
governments than a regional survey which involves their own from the perspective of UNESCO. The article provides a policy
experts (e.g. SACMEQ, PASEC), and may reproduce dependence analysis of the shifts in thinking in the UNESCO EFA post-2015
on external technical experts and allow international account- process focusing on its recent position paper and the changes
ability to displace responsibility and accountability to their own reflected in the Muscat GEM agreement. Whilst they suggest that
citizenship. there is much to commend in the focus on learning and teaching,
Fifth, all the articles acknowledge the need for an approach to the narrowing of the agenda in the Muscat agreement may result in
learning and associated measures that foreground equity. As stated a limited vision of education quality.
in the overarching education goals, equitable learning should be at There are three salient issues which both articles raise. First, it is
the heart of the post-2015 education agenda. Equity in measures of evident that the post-2015 education discussions are evidence-
learning is conventionally addressed as disaggregated data that informed and it is clear that international agencies are increasingly
provides information about children from disadvantaged back- receptive to research. Yet there is a real risk that the reading of the
grounds including location, gender, and income. Equity is also evidence and the review of the current agenda is only partial and
addressed indirectly by suggestions that measures of learning tends to confirm pre-existing suppositions. As we move forward in
should be differentiated between those from rich and poor the post-2015 education and development agenda, how can
backgrounds, those from urban and rural areas, and by sex. This agencies ensure that it is not a case of policy-based evidence rather
approach, in large part, addresses the need for equity in learning as than evidence-informed policy?
a foundational commitment in the post-2015 education and Second, understandably international agencies (and by impli-
development agenda. cation national governments with whom they work) have to focus
Yet, addressing inequality in learning is only possible if there on clear, reliable and measurable targets and indicators to measure
is equity in teacher distribution and training. In many education learning. But, as noted above, there is concern that the post-2015
systems, well-qualified and experienced teachers are clustered agenda focusing on teaching and learning is being narrowed and,
in schools serving the advantaged (UNESCO, 2014). To ensure like the access agenda, becomes no more than a quest for
equity in learning, the target for teachers and the associated quantitative measures to show progress. Education quality, as
measures as proposed in various documents (see Sayed and several articles in this edition make clear, is complex and learning,
Ahmed, 2014) should also focus on equity. To put it differently, multi-faceted. International agencies, as well as the broader
as some of the articles in the first section have noted, learning education community, thus have to strive to retain a comprehen-
relies heavily on teachers and teaching; a commitment to equity sive and holistic understanding of teaching and learning,
in learning should include therefore a focus on teachers and notwithstanding institutional pressures to narrow the agenda.
teaching. Finally, the UNESCO EFA-led process is indeed a strong
Finally, while highlighting and exploring key issues, the articles movement for preserving a view of education that encompasses
are relatively silent on who benefits from a focus on measuring all levels and a learning agenda that is comprehensive. Yet without
learning. There is indeed a global architecture of assessment and a a clear articulation with the broader post-2015 development
political economy of testing. Testing is a large industry and process, there may be two competing visions of education, as is the
business – after textbook publication, the testing market is case presently. The UNESCO- and UNICEF-led thematic consulta-
probably the largest global market in education. Any discussion tions on education made clear that one of the weaknesses of the
of learning and its measures must directly confront the question of current global education agenda is the lack of articulation between
who controls the testing market and who stands to gain from an the EFA and MDG processes and that there is a need to ensure that
increased focus on assessing learning. It would, indeed, be the two are effectively integrated in any post-2015 agenda. But this
unfortunate if the post-2015 education agenda focusing on problem is not specific only to the UNESCO process. There are
learning and its measurement created a scramble for market many competing positions and agendas in the post-2015 discus-
share and unwittingly intensified the current privatisation of sion; any outsider will find it hard to fathom and comprehend
assessment and testing. some of these divergent positions. These competing processes
236 A. Barrett et al. / International Journal of Educational Development 40 (2015) 231–236

reflect the politics of institutional priorities and attempts to secure References

organisational space and advantage in shaping the post-2015
Berry, C., Hinton, R., Barnett, E., 2014. What does learning for all mean for DFID’s
discourse. Whilst understandable, a more integrated approach is global education work? Int. J. Educ. Dev. 39.
nonetheless required for the post-2015 education agenda, one Center for Universal Education at Brookings, 2011. A global compact on learning:
framed by a strong vision of social justice. taking action on education in developing countries. Center for Universal Edu-
cation, Brookings.
Education for All Global Monitoring Report, 2013. Proposed Post-2015 Education
3.4. What is missing from the learning debate Goals: Emphasizing Equity, Measurability and Finance, Intial Draft for Discus-
sion. UNESCO, Paris.
Filmer, D., Hasan, A., Pritchett, L., 2006. A Millennium Learning Goal: Measuring
We acknowledged near the beginning of this editorial piece that Real Progress in Education, Working Paper 97. Center for Global Development,
many authors are associated with in different ways organisations Washington, DC.
that have driven forward the learning debate. It is also the case that Global Education for All Meeting, 2014. 2014 GEM final statement: the Muscat
agreement. In: Paper presented at the Global Education For All Meeting,
these authors are mainly based in institutions in the global North,
Muscat, Oman, 12–14 May 2014.
most notably the US and UK. So whilst international consultations High-Level Panel, 2013. A New Global Partnership: Eradicate Poverty and Transform
have fed into the EFA debate, this special issue offers limited Economies Through Sustainable Development. The Report of the High-Level
insight into how the learning agenda is perceived in the global Panel of Eminent Persons on the Post-2015 Development Agenda United
Nations, New York.
South. The Commonwealth Education Ministers did put forward a Hufton, N., Elliott, J., 2000. Motivation to learn: the pedagogical nexus in the Russian
proposal for a post-2015 architecture of goals that included targets school. Some implications for transnational research and policy borrowing.
for measures of learning; their preferred measures however were Educ. Stud. 26 (1) 115–136.
Mcgrath, S., King, K., Palmer, R.E.S., 2014. Education and the post-2015 international
results in their own national examinations. This does highlight the development goals. Int. J. Educ. Dev. (in press).
need to find measures and indicators or learning that are Murphy, P., Wolfenden, F., 2013. Developing a pedagogy of mutuality in a capability
meaningful at the national level. There is little point in an approach: teachers’ experiences of using the Open Educational Resources (OER)
of the teacher education in sub-Saharan Africa (TESSA) programme. Int. J. Educ.
‘international community’ mainly located in the global North Dev. 33 (3) 263–271.
monitoring learning if that information is not being interpreted Open Working Group for Sustainable Development Goals, 2014. Proposal of the
and informing policy and practice within education systems. There Open Working Group for Sustainable Development Goals. UN Sustainable
Development Knowledge Platform, New York.
is a clear need for more analytical work looking at how learning is
Palmer, R., 2014. Technical and vocational skills and post-2015: avoiding another
understood, monitored and improved at the national level and how vague skills goal? Int. J. Educ. Dev., http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijedu-
this articulates with the international EFA debate. dev.2014.08.007 (in press).
Sayed, Y., Khanjee, A., 2013. An overview of education policy change in post-
It is also the case that most of the articles within this special
apartheid South Africa. In: Sayed, Y., Kanjee, A., Nkomo, M. (Eds.), Education
issue largely construe learning as learning that takes place within policy change and school reform: the search for quality in South Africa. HSRC
schools. In theory, at least, a shift to a learning agenda has the Press, South Africa.
potential to open a space to consider the contribution of non- Sayed, Y., Ahmed, R., 2014. Education quality, and teaching and learning in the post-
2015 agenda. Int. J. Educ. Dev. 39.
formal education and to re-imagine schools as alternative means Sriprakash, A., 2010. Child-centred education and the promise of democratic
of facilitating meaningful learning. Finally, the contributions to learning: pedagogic messages in rural Indian primary schools. Int. J. Educ.
this special issue have not departed from the tendency for the Dev. 30 (3) 297–304.
UNESCO, 2010. Education for All Global Monitoring Report 2010 – Reaching the
post-2015 to be insulated from broader SDG debates or to Marginalized. UNESCO/Oxford University Press, Paris, Oxford.
consider what these may mean for what learning we value and UNESCO, 2014. Teaching and Learning Achieving Quality for All, EFA Global Moni-
how we support that learning. While this collection opens up the toring Report 2013/4. UNESCO, Paris.
UNICEF/UNESCO, 2013. Making Education a Priority in the Post-2015 Development
debate around learning and learning goals, there is further scope Agenda, Report of the Global Thematic Consultation on Education in the Post-
for expanding this and connecting it to sustainable development. 2015 Development Agenda. UNICEF/UNESCO, New York/Paris.
We hope that this special issue can be a springboard for those Valiente, O., 2014. The OECD skills strategy and the education agenda for develop-
ment. Int. J. Educ. Dev., http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/ijedudev.2014.08.008 (in press).
discussions.