United Nations
Educational, Scientific and
Cultural Organization
UNESCO Education Research and Foresight
Occasional
papers
02
March 2012
Beyond the
Conceptual Maze
The notion of quality in education
Concern with quality
improvement in
education
Conceptualizations
of quality
and analytical
frameworks
Implications for
assessing the
quality of
education
ISSN 2304-7747
Sobhi Tawil
Abdeljalil Akkari
Beatriz Macedo
Senior Programme Specialist
Education Research
& Foresight
UNESCO
Professor
Faculty of Psychology
and Education
University of Geneva
Programme Specialist
Education Research
& Foresight
UNESCO
Abstract
Discussions relative to the quality of education often remain blurred by the lack both of
clarity, as well as of a common understanding of what is actually meant by the term quality.
Arguably, this has to do with the fact that, rather than an operational concept, quality
in education is a notion which commands a seemingly intuitive understanding. As such,
there is no single definition or approach, but rather diverse possible conceptualizations
and multiple approaches, each based on widely differing assumptions. This paper thus
proposes to take stock of some of the conceptualizations of the notion of quality in
education, and of possible analytical approaches as well as their underlying assumptions.
This appears crucial to UNESCO’s support of Member States as the notion of quality
frames the organization’s efforts for the development of education worldwide. While this
paper will focus on conceptualizations developed while monitoring progress towards
the Education for All (EFA) goals, it will also refer to other approaches put forward
to better understand and examine the quality of learning and the performance of
education systems. In reviewing these, this paper offers three categories of frameworks
in what might be called (i) the Learner-centred Approach, (ii) the Inputs-process-outputs
Approach, and (iii) the Multidimensional Social Interaction Approach. The purpose of
this paper is not to propose yet another model to conceptualize quality in education,
but rather to chart a way through the conceptual maze by reviewing the array of existing
approaches.
2
UNESCO Education Research and Foresight • Occasional papers
> Concern with quality improvement
in education
The centrality of the notion of quality in the framing of UNESCO
support in the area of education reflects the progressive shift in
the discourse on international education over the past decade.
While international focus on the quality of education appears
to be recent, discussions at the 1990 World Conference on
Education for All (WCEFA) in Jomtien had already placed
significant emphasis on learning achievement and had
guarded against focusing too narrowly on issues of access,
retention and completion. In spite of this, the Education for All
(EFA) movement that followed in the 1990s largely placed its
focus on expanding access to basic education in general, and
to primary schooling in particular. This quantitative bias was
clearly a response to the declining trends in primary enrolment
observed in 25% of developing country contexts in the 1980s1.
Since 2000, however, the notion of quality has permeated the
discourse on international education, in line with the explicit
goal formulated in the 2000 Dakar Framework for Action:
→→ … 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.2
The quantity-quality trade-off in
international education development
This more recent prominence of the theme of quality since 2000
is undoubtedly a reaction to the more quantitative vision that
prevailed during the 1990s, when emphasis was predominantly
placed on expanding access to primary education. During
that time, much of the focus in educational development had
been on increasing the number of children and youth able to
access basic education, with much less attention being paid
to the outcomes of the educational process. Even today, and
despite the formidable progress observed in expanding access
to basic schooling in much of the developing world since
2000, including in many of the poorest countries, higher net
primary enrolment rates have yet to fully translate into higher
literacy rates in many countries.3 This is largely due to the high
dropout rates observed in many contexts signifying that many
children do not complete the full primary education cycle and,
consequently, do not acquire basic literacy and numeracy skills.
Moreover, and perhaps more worryingly, one can observe that
completion of a full cycle of primary education of poor quality
does not always ensure the acquisition of basic numeracy and
literacy skills.4 As a result, patterns of primary school dropout
and the often low quality of learning in primary schools observed
1 Berstecher & Carr-Hill (1990).
2Dakar Framework for Action (2000).
3 See report of the Secretary-General of the United Nations on “Implementing
the Internationally Agreed Goals and Commitments in Regard to Education”
presented at the 2011 ECOSOC Annual Ministerial Review (Geneva, 4-8 July
2011).
in many countries worldwide contribute to the reproduction
of illiteracy among young adults. The dilemma thus became
increasingly framed in terms of a quantity-quality trade-off; that
is, that the expansion of education systems and opportunities
to learners thus far excluded, and often belonging to more
disadvantaged communities, had translated into an overall
decline in average levels of learning acquisition at the end of
the primary education cycle.
Quality improvement as a broad
concern within national education
reforms
This shift in the international education discourse is also
reflected in the increased concern with improving the quality
of education shown in national education reforms worldwide.
The rationales used to justify increasing concern with quality,
relevance, results, and performance in national education
and training systems are many and wide-ranging. Rationales
for quality improvement are based, firstly, on the need to
increase the effectiveness of national education and training
systems, as they are essential levers for societal development
in an increasingly globalized world; secondly, on the need to
reduce discrepancies observed between educational outlays
and the relevance of what is actually learned to the lives of
learners, their families and their communities in particularas well as to national development efforts more broadly.
Rationales for improving quality in the discourse on national
education reform also have to do with the need to reduce the
observed inequalities in performance between schools within
education systems. The disparities observed in the social and
gendered distribution of learning outcomes among various
categories of the population also need to be addressed.
Finally, these rationales are also related to concerns regarding
formal education systems’ capacity to deal with the growing
diversity and complexity of national societies, resulting from
the increasing pace of migrations, urbanization, cultural
globalization, and the broadening access to expanding sources
and channels of transmission of information, knowledge and
values.5
Growing interest in external
assessments of learning outcomes
This shift in discourse is concurrent with a growing interest in
international and national assessments of learning outcomes.
Traditional approaches to the quality of education rely
5
See, for example, Pigozzi (2006) in Ross & Jurgens Genevois (Eds.) Crossnational studies of the quality of education. Paris: IIEP pp. 39-49.
3
UNESCO Education Research and Foresight • Occasional papers
essentially on proxy indicators relative to educational provision
and inputs that affect the teaching and learning process; there
is, however, a growing interest in the results of the process in
terms of the levels and distribution of cognitive skills acquired.
Indeed, beyond the mere delivery of more schooling to greater
numbers, the levels, relevance, and distribution of skills that
children and youth acquire through formal education could be
said to constitute the most immediate measure of the success
or failure of individual and collective investment in education.
It is within this perspective that international and regional
assessments such as the Programme for International Student
Assessment (PISA), the Trends in International Mathematics and
Science Survey (TIMSS), the Progress in International Reading
Literacy Study (PIRLS), the Programme d’Analyse des Systèmes
Educatifs de la CONFEMEN (PASEC), the Southern and
Eastern Africa Consortium for Monitoring Educational Quality
(SACMEQ) and the Second and Third Regional Comparative
and Explanatory Studies of student achievement in Latin
America and the Caribbean (SERCE, TERCE) have been testing
levels of cognitive achievement in mathematics, science and
language skills.6 Moreover, an increasing number of countries
are implementing large-scale external national assessments to
test achievement in various areas of learning, and at different
levels of schooling. The data produced by such large-scale
assessments aims to answer three main sets of questions:
(i) what are learners actually learning? what knowledge do
they possess? what do they master in terms of skills? (ii) Are
education systems performing well in producing the intended
learning outcomes? (iii) What are the characteristics of students’
learning environments that explain this performance?
A narrow focus on cognitive learning
outcomes
But such large-scale external assessments based on
standardized testing have also been criticized for a number
of reasons. Many have argued that such testing narrowly
reduces the vision of results of educational processes.
Indeed, standardized testing tends to focus on more easily
measurable ‘academic’ learning outcomes, neglecting other
important social dimensions of learning. Having said this, there
is increasing worldwide effort to measure value orientation,
attitudes and emotional development, despite the important
methodological challenges this represents.7
6PISA measures mathematics, science and reading skill levels among 15
year olds in OECD countries and beyond; TIMSS measures mathematics
and science skill levels among 9 and 13 year olds; PIRLS measures reading
skill levels and attitudes among 9 year olds; PASEC measures reading and
math skill levels among grade 2 and grade 5 pupils; SACMEQ measures
reading and math skill levels and knowledge of basic health issues among
grade 6 pupils; SERCE (2008) measured language and mathematics skill
levels and knowledge of natural sciences among pupils in grades 3 and 6.
The Third Regional Comparative and Explanatory Study (TERCE) of student
achievement in Latin America and the Caribbean was in preparation at the
time of writing.
7An important example of this is the International Civic and Citizenship
Education Study (ICCS) conducted by the International Association for the
Evaluation of Educational Achievement (IEA) in 2008 and that measures
knowledge of, understandings in, and attitudes towards civic and citizenship
education among 14 year olds (grades 8 or 9).
Rankings and the risk of the
“commodification” of education
Moreover, it has been argued that cross-national assessments
encourage a focus on the international ranking of education
systems, resulting in a temptation to propose “model”
schooling systems whose characteristics could theoretically
be exported to other contexts. From a methodological point
of view, the scale and the margin of error inherent to national
scores combined with the weak range of performance observed
between more developed countries renders any international
ranking of participating countries, on the basis of a standard
measure of skill levels, meaningless.8 The question then is not
to so much to use such data to naïvely attempt to identify the
characteristics of an effective schooling model to implement/
impose in widely differing contexts and educational traditions,
but rather to aim for a better understanding of how the
achievements of specific categories of students are related
to characteristics of their learning environment in particular
contexts. Finally, more radical critiques “challenge the
sacrosanct idea that learning and intellectual capacity can and
should be measured like any other quantifiable commodity”
and question the pervasive role of “edumometer” technology
in public education. In the context of more developed countries,
for instance, the use of national data assessment to compare
and rank educational institutions can, in some contexts, run
the risk of the “commodification” of education not only in the
“transformation of standardized tests into data points, but also
in the way that aggregations of these scores at the school level
are used to compare schools as though they were educational
production sites.”9
Beyond rankings: generating data on
system equity and effectiveness
While cross-national data resulting from the assessment of
learning outcomes are not devoid of their shortcomings,
both conceptually and methodologically, they nevertheless
represent a unique body of comparative evidence. This
evidence can be used to assess the average performance of
national education systems over time, the degree of equity in
the social distribution of learning outcomes, and to identify
possible factors and system characteristics that determine both
the level and distribution of these outcomes. Indeed, more
recent analyses of such assessment data also seek to gain a
better understanding of the social distribution of learning, and
the systemic and contextual determinants of the performance
of systems over time.10 Indeed, beyond the initial fervour
around cross-national comparisons and rankings, more recent
analyses of PISA results, for instance, illustrate the usefulness
of these large-scale assessments in plotting inequality in the
social distribution of learning results over time. A 2009 analysis
of the social distribution of PISA results in France, for instance,
8 Baudelot & Establet (2009: 19).
9 Corbett (2008).
10 See, for example, Mourshed, Chijoke & Barber (2010), or the current World
Bank Benchmarking Education Systems for Results (SABER) initiative being
piloted in the Asia-Pacific region.
4
UNESCO Education Research and Foresight • Occasional papers
indicated that while the average levels of learning outcomes
are rising, inequalities are also becoming wider. This leads the
authors to conclude that while French schooling contributes
satisfactorily to the formation of elites, it fails to ensure a
sound level of basic skills to all learners.11 Other research
based on learning assessment data has been exploring the
performance of school systems over time. A recent study on
school improvement in twenty countries has attempted to
understand what cluster of factors explain progress in average
levels and more equitable distribution of learning outcomes in
a variety of contexts.12 Both national and international external
assessments of learning outcomes have the advantage of
making national authorities take a fresh look at their education
systems, helping them understand their system’s strengths and
weaknesses, and to differentiate between in-school, systemic,
and contextual factors of improvement that could inform policy
interventions.13
Changing paradigms in the pursuit of
better quality education
Whatever the conceptualization of quality, the analytical
framework adopted, or the set of factors focused on in any
particular context, the recent shift in international and national
education policy focusing on quality improvement reflects
a changing paradigm relative to educational processes. This
change of paradigm has important implications in terms of
conceptualizations of the learning process, the teaching/
learning methods used, curriculum design, as well as the ways
in which educational processes are planned and managed.
In terms of implications for teaching and learning processes,
education is no longer equated solely with teaching, and more
concern is being given to what is being learned and how this
is being done. This is mirrored in the shift in discourse from
a focus on schooling to a view of lifelong learning in which
the acquisition of “basic learning tools” (as defined in the
1990 Jomtien view of “basic learning needs”) constitute the
essential building blocks. Learning is no longer seen as being
time-bound, and increased attention is being given to the
intended outcomes of learning. This shift also translates into
a greater interest in active learner-centred approaches and
the construction of knowledge, the development of analytical,
synthesis skills and other competencies, rather than the
traditional passive teacher-centred approaches based on the
transmission of information and knowledge relying heavily on
memorisation and rote learning (Table 1).
Table 1
Shifting Conceptualizations of Teaching and Learning14
From focus on :
➠
To concern with :
Teaching
Learning
Schooling
Life-long learning
Time-bound learning
Outcomes-based
Transmission of information
Learning to learn
Passive learning
Active learning
Memorisation & rote learning
Understanding, analysis, synthesis and application
Teacher-centered approaches
Learner-centered approaches
Summative evaluation
Formative evaluation
In terms of curricula, this shift in the conceptualization of teaching
and learning implies a move away from a focus on knowledge as
the organizing principle of curriculum content, to one based on
the development of skills and the acquisition of competencies.
As a result, there is a move away from fragmented conceptions
11 Baudelot and Establet (2009: 30).
12 Mourshed, Chijoke & Barber (2010).
13 Baudelot & Establet (2009: 34).
14 Tables 1-3 are adapted from Tawil (2006) “La qualité et la pertinence de
l’éducation: un défi mondial”, in : Toualbi, N. & S. Tawil (Eds). Réforme de
l’éducation et innovation pédagogique en Algérie. Alger: UNESCO-ONPS,
pp. 27-50.
of curricula content based on compartmentalized knowledge
and specialised subject areas, towards more integrated
curricula content based on learning areas and possibilities of
diversification of curricula at regional, local or school levels in
order to ensure greater relevance (Table 2).
5
UNESCO Education Research and Foresight • Occasional papers
Table 2
Shifting Conceptualizations of Curriculum Design
From focus on :
➠
To concern with :
Fragmented curricula
Integrated curricula
Specialized subjects
Learning areas
Content defined as knowledge
Development of skills and competencies
Centralized curricula
Diversification: regional and local curricula
Beyond teaching/learning processes and curriculum design,
this shift also has implications for the planning and management
of educational processes. Indeed, rather than traditional
quantitative approaches that focus more on supply-side
factors, inputs, access issues, and investment efforts, attention
has been increasingly placed on qualitative approaches,
social demand for education, system efficiency, as well as
outcomes, results and impact of educational processes. Such
shifting conceptualizations of teaching and learning have also
often gone hand in hand with efforts to diversify educational
delivery, often through more decentralized forms of planning
and management, if not through greater devolution of power
to the local level and greater decentralization of educational
decision-making (Table 3).
Table 3
Shifting Conceptualizations of Educational Planning and Management
From focus on:
➠
To concern with:
Supply
Demand
Quantitative approach
Qualitative dimensions
Access
Quality & Relevance
Inputs
Outputs, Outcomes, Results & Impact
Investment efforts
System efficiency
Centralized management
Decentralization
The elusive notion of quality in
education
“If no one asks me, I know:
If I wish to explain it to one that asketh, I know not”.15
What is actually meant by the notion of quality in education?
Much like Saint Augustine’s statement in reference to time, the
notion of quality in education commands a seemingly intuitive
understanding and yet seems to escape definition. The fact that
it is a notion, rather than an operational concept, implies that it
cannot be captured through any single definition or approach.
This explains why diverse conceptualizations have been
proposed and multiple approaches developed in an attempt
to reach a common understanding of what quality education
15 Saint Augustine of Hippo on the notion of time in Book 11 of his Confessions.
is actually about, how best to analyse and monitor it, and how
to inform policy interventions to improve it. The section that
follows thus proposes to take stock of some of the differing
conceptualizations of the notion of quality in education,
as well as of possible analytical approaches. The range of
conceptualizations and approaches proposed often cloud our
understanding in our stubborn attempt to reduce this complex
and multidimensional notion to one single all-encompassing
model. The purpose of the next section is not to propose
yet another model to conceptualize quality in education, but
rather to present and review the array of approaches that exist
and their multiple possible entry points. In doing so, we hope
to help chart a way through the conceptual maze resulting from
the diverse attempts to approach and better understand this
multi-faceted notion.
6
UNESCO Education Research and Foresight • Occasional papers
> Conceptualizations of Quality
and Analytical Frameworks
A review of existing conceptualizations of the notion of quality
in education and their corresponding analytical frameworks
may be categorized into three types of approaches.
The first of these is the Learner-Centred approach characteristic
of UNICEF, inspired by a rights-of-the-child perspective which
places the child-learner at the centre of concerns. A second
set of more technical, rational approaches are variations on
the Input-process-output model inspired by an industrial view
of educational production, seeking to assess the quality of
educational “products” and the “performance” of education
systems. Finally, a third set of approaches can be described
as based on a Multidimensional Social Interaction perspective,
which incorporates a more sociological perspective on
education as a “public good” that must necessarily take into
account a range of dimensions and the dynamics of interaction
between various stakeholders. This third approach implies a
continuous process of redefinition regarding the consensus
on what constitutes relevant education, from the multiple
perspectives of diverse groups of stakeholders in a specific
context at a given time. This section briefly presents these
approaches, illustrating each by sample frameworks, including
some of those proposed by UNESCO as contributions to the
international “quality improvement debate”.16
thus resides in the fact that it distinguishes clearly between
“the level of the learner in his or her learning environment”
(or the “inner learner level”) and that of “the level of the
education system that creates and supports the learning
experience” (or the “outer system level”). In this framework,
teaching and learning methods, the learning environment, as
well as organisational dimensions of the system are necessarily
conceived as being learner-centred.
Figure 1
Framework for the Quality of Education (UNESCO 2006)
Managerial and
administrative
system
Implementation
of good
policies
Seeks out
learners
A first approach may be defined as Learner-centred in that
it locates learning at the centre of thinking about quality in
education. Inspired by human rights norms and the rights
of children in particular, this approach is sensitive to issues
of inclusiveness in access to education, and educational
experience alike, emphasizing:
→→ … 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 the learning
experience itself has intrinsic worth and should promote child
rights.17
Processes
Supportive
legislative
framework
Learning
Content
The Learner-Centred Approach: A rightsof-the-child perspective
What the
learner
brings
Environment
Resources
Means to mesure
learning outcomes
Source: Pigozzi (2006).
The 2006 framework proposed by the former UNESCO Division
for Quality Education is based on this approach (see Figure 1
below). While the primary concern of this framework is placing
learning at the centre of the model, “the inputs, processes,
environment and outputs that surround and foster (or hamper)
learning are important as well.”18 The merit of the framework
Rather than an operational model per se, the proposed
framework translates a view of quality in education based on
principles of inclusiveness and equity inspired by a rightsbased approach in general, and by the Convention on the
Rights of the Child (CRC) in particular. This is very much in line
with the view of quality education inherent to the model of
Child-Friendly Schools (CFS) developed by UNICEF.19 Indeed,
UNICEF (2009) suggests that key principles based on the CRC
can be used to generate the desired features, or characteristics,
of child-friendly schools. It is the interpretation of these CRC
principles that define both the desired features of educational
processes in any given context, and the CFS standards of
16 See, for example, discussion in Nikel and Lowe (2010).
17UNESCO (2011). “EFA End-of-Decade Note on Quality (Goal 6) for the Asia
Pacific Region”, July 2011 (draft).
18Pigozzi (2006: 42-43).
19It is useful to point out that Mary-Joy Pigozzi had prior experience at UNICEF
before serving as Director of the Division of Quality Education at UNESCO.
7
UNESCO Education Research and Foresight • Occasional papers
quality education. These standards of quality relate to at least
four dimensions:20
The Input-Process-Output Approach:
The technical-rational vision
→→ Inclusiveness and equality: Including children’s equal rights,
respect for diversity and gender equality
A second set of frameworks may be said to represent variations
on the more technical- rational Input-process-output approach
inspired by an industrial view of educational production
seeking to measure the quality of educational “products”
and the “performance” of education systems. While there are
numerous available frameworks inspired by this approach, they
are all based on a perspective in which the nature of the results
of the educational process (outputs, outcomes, impact…), are
determined by a number of input factors (ranging from the
characteristics of learners, to curriculum, teachers and school
environment…), as well as by other contextual factors.
→→ Effective teaching and learning: Including teachers’
motivation and support systems, relevant curricula “infused
with life skills”, student-centred teaching and learning methods
→→ Safe, healthy and productive learning environments:
Including skills-based safety education, the adoption of healthy
growth standards, and the organization of physical education
→→ Participation and harmonization in school management:
Including student and teacher participation, family-community
and school partnerships, and school leadership
These dimensions are at the heart of the CFS Framework
proposed by UNICEF (2005) which further highlights the
importance of gender responsiveness by presenting it
separately from the broader dimension of inclusiveness and
equality. In the Asia-Pacific region, the framework was later
expanded to include an additional important dimension of
“systems and policies” (see Figure 2). The point of the CFS
Framework is that it “provides a comprehensive understanding
of quality and, perhaps more importantly, an integral approach
to recognizing the diversity of learners and the contextual
influences”.21 Having said this, the relevance of this general
approach is constrained by the fact that it tends to focus on
primary schooling, particularly in low-income countries.
Figure 2
Child Friendly Schools Framework
Inclusive
schools
Healthy,
protective
& safe
Systems
& policies
The World Bank Vision and the EFA Global
Monitoring Reports (GMR)
Rooted in this approach, the World Bank vision, for instance,
proposes a model to identify factors that determine
effectiveness at the school level; factors which are related to
“enabling conditions” (such as effective school leadership
and a capable teacher force) that shape both the teaching
and learning processes, as well as the school climate.22 These
enabling conditions within the school are dependent on inputs
such as support from parents and the community, curriculum
and teaching/learning materials, and facilities. School
effectiveness is ultimately assessed through outcomes in terms
of the participation, academic achievement, social skills and
economic success of students.23
The framework proposed in the first EFA Global Monitoring
Report (GMR 2002) (Figure 3) is largely inspired by this model,
building on the ideas developed by Heneveld & Craig (1995), as
well as those of OECD/INES (2001), and Scherens (2002). Much
like the World Bank vision, the GMR framework makes explicit
the most tangible input and contextual factors that affect the
“black box” of the teaching/learning process. The GMR 2002
framework is useful in going a step further in that it allows for
a clear distinction between the levels of the classroom, the
institution, and that of national policy.24
The six
dimensions of
child friendly
schools
Involving
students,
families and
communities
Effective
learning
Gender
responsive
Source: UNICEF (2005).
20 See Framework for National Child-Friendly School (CFS) Standards in
UNICEF (2009).
21Idem.
22Heneveld & Craig (1995).
23 See World Bank conceptual framework relative to “Factors that Determine
School Effectiveness” presented in Heneveld & Craig (1995).
24UNESCO (2002: 80).
8
UNESCO Education Research and Foresight • Occasional papers
Figure 3
GMR 2002 Input-Process-Outcome Framework
INPUTS
School
curriculum content
textbooks and learning materials
teacher qualifications, training,
morale and commitment
adequate facilities
parent/community support
PROCESS
School climate
high expectations
strong leadership
positive teacher attitudes
safe and gender-sensitive
environment
incentives for good results
flexibility/autonomy
Student characteristics
aptitude, ability
perseverance/commitment
nutrition and health
school readiness
attended ECCE
gender
Household/community
characteristics
parental attitudes
household income
community economic and labour
market conditions
cultural/religious factors
OUTCOMES
Achievement
cognitive development
literacy, generic skills
good citizenship
personal development
positive attitudes towards
learning
healthy behaviour
Attainment
formal completion
diplomas/qualifications
Teaching/learning
sufficient learning time
active teaching methods
integrated systems for
assessment and feedback
appropriate class size
appropriate use of language
Standards
official learning objectives
(desired outcomes)
Contextual factors
Macro-economic and fiscal policies,
political stability, decentralization and
governance, civil service quality
National goals and standards for
education, curricular guidelines,
sources of funding and allocation,
teacher recruitment/deployment
Education system management
Participation, progression, completion
and transition
Engagement and use of time
Peer effects, parental support,
promotion policies
Source: derived from Heneveld and Graig (1995), OECD/INES (2001), Scheerens (2002).
Source: UNESCO (2002). Global Monitoring Report. Education for All: Is the world on track?
Several years later the 2005 GMR, devoted to the theme of
quality in education, also proposed a variation on this general
input-process-output framework, reorganising the various
clusters of factors and offered for consideration the following
five dimensions (Figure 4):
learning processes as well as the learning environment, such
as infrastructure and equipment, curriculum, syllabi, textbooks
and other instructional material, the training and motivation of
teachers, school directors, inspectors and administrators, and
modalities of school management.
→→ Learners’ characteristics: This first dimension encompasses
characteristics of the learner and his/her household that largely
determine the effectiveness of the educational process. They
include characteristics such as the learners’ aptitude, health,
gender, perseverance, school readiness, prior knowledge,
family and socioeconomic obstacles to learning.
→→ Outcomes: Outcomes of the learning process represent
the most tangible expression of the results of the teaching and
learning processes in terms of the levels and social distribution
of literacy and numeracy skills, life skills, creative and emotional
skills, values, respect for diversity and social cohesion, social
well-being and impact on societal development.
→→ Teaching and learning process: The process of teaching
and learning is centrally located within the framework and
includes essential pedagogical factors such as teaching/
learning methods, actual instructional time, assessment
methods, average class size, languages of instruction, and
class management strategies.
→→ Facilitating inputs: This dimension includes a range of
factors that directly influence and shape the teaching and
→→ Context: In attempting to fully understand the dynamics
of the teaching/learning process, it is essential to consider
social, cultural, economic and political dimensions of the local
context. These dimensions include such factors as the structure
and needs of the labour market in a context of globalization,
socio-cultural, linguistic and religious factors, public demand,
modalities of national governance, support structures, and
public resources allocated to education.
9
UNESCO Education Research and Foresight • Occasional papers
Figure 4
GMR 2005 Framework for Understanding Education Quality
Enabling inputs
Teaching and learning
Learning time
Learner
characteristics
Aptitude
Teaching methods
Assessment, feedback, incentives
Class size
Perseverance
Teaching and learning materials
School readiness
Physical infrastructure and facilities
Prior knowledge
Human resources: teachers, principals,
inspectors, supervisors, administrators
Barriers
to learning
Outcomes
Literacy, numeracy
and life skills
Creative and
emotional skills
Values
Social benefits
School governance
Context
Economic and labour
market conditions in
the community
Socio-cultural and religious
factors
(Aid strategies)
Educational knowledge
and support infrastructure
Philosophical standpoint
of teacher and learner
National standards
Public resources available
for education
Peer effects
Labour market demands
Parental support
Competitiveness of
the teaching profession
on the labour market
Globalization
Time available for
schooling and homework
Public expectations
National governance and
management strategies
Source: UNESCO (2005). EFA Global Monitoring Report. The quality Imperative. Paris.
Development of an Analytical Framework to
Monitor Quality (UNESCO)
Building on and attempting to refine the input-process-output
approach, UNESCO is currently testing an analytical framework
to help monitor quality in general education systems. Initially
inspired by a variation on the output-process-output approach,
‘quality education’ in this framework is broadly conceptualized
as one which is “effective for purpose, development relevant
or responsive, equitable, resource-efficient and as denoting
substantive access.”25 While still in development, the
framework aims at creating an instrument for systemic analysis
and monitoring that attempts to go beyond prior approaches
that have tended to focus on selected aspects of education
inputs, most often in isolation from one another. Indeed, it is
argued that:
the best part, only cognitive outcomes receive attention. Even
then, cognitive outcomes have been narrowly defined as test
scores.26
Measuring the quality of education: Limits and
challenges
The most analyzed inputs are finance, teachers, curricula,
school infrastructure and furniture, books and instructional
materials. However, it is very rare that even these select aspects
receive a comprehensive, articulated and interactive/iterative
analysis. Likewise, process factors that often receive isolated
attention are assessment, management and governance. For
With the input-process-output approach, the conceptualization
of the quality of education remains essentially a pursuit of
measurement through quantitative indicators. This raises two
sets of concerns. The first is technical and raises concerns about
data availability and reliability, as well as about the existence of
robust statistical national/local information systems to produce
them. There is also the additional challenge of common
definitions of indicators that allow for international comparisons
and to which the International Standard Classification of
Education (ISCED) is a response. Beyond this, however, the
most direct, albeit limited, internationally comparable data on
the quality of “outputs” or results of educational processes
are arguably generated by international/regional assessments
of learning outcomes. Such data, however, do not allow for a
global snapshot as the various large-scale assessments concern
diverse groups of participating countries.
25 Marope (2011: 9).
26Ibid., p 5.
10
UNESCO Education Research and Foresight • Occasional papers
In the absence of such direct measures on a global scale, a
range of possible proxy indicators for the quality of learning
and the performance of education systems may be used.
Indeed, remaining within the Input-process-output model, and
with reference the framework of international efforts to monitor
Education for All, GMR reports on a range of indictors relative
to inputs (such as, total public expenditure on education as % of
GNP, total public expenditure on education as % of total public
spending, teachers…), to process (e.g. primary repetition, drop
out and completion rates), and to outputs (e.g. youth and adult
literacy rates). However, given data deficits for international
comparisons, the first GMR launched in 2002, for instance,
proposed the following two proxy indicators for quality, both
of which are input indicators; (i) share (%) of public expenditure
allocated to the primary education sector, and (ii) pupil-teacher
ratios in primary education. In the most recent GMR (2011) two
proxy indicators are used in monitoring progress towards EFA
Goal 6 which is the input indicator of pupil-teacher ratios in
primary education, as well as the process indicator of survival
rate to grade 5.
Beyond the issue of the availability, reliability and comparability
of data relative to direct and indirect measures of educational
quality, the attempt to assess the quality of educational systems
solely through measurable indicators also raises broader
conceptual concerns. Indeed, the focus on measurement
encourages a reductionist view of the educational process,
and its social and political dimensions. The use of indicators
to measure the quality and performance of education systems
is but one, albeit practical, approach to assessing the multiple
dimensions of educational quality. It must, however, be stressed
that not all dimensions of the quality and relevance of learning
and the performance of education systems can be assessed
solely through measurement and quantifiable indicators.
The Multidimensional Social
Interaction Approach: Perspectives
of local stakeholders
Indeed, the idea of quantifiable educational performance as
translating the essence of quality in education is not shared
by all educationists. In order to transcend the instrumental
and technical-rational vision on which the input-processoutcome model is based, another set of approaches adopt
a wider societal approach. Based on a vision of education as
a public good, these approaches focus on the dynamics of
interaction between the various dimensions of education and
the necessary process of continuous redefinition of consensus
or social contract among the stakeholders involved relative to
what national education systems should achieve and how this
is to be done.
The ‘fabric’ of quality in education
One recent illustration of such an approach is that of the ‘fabric’
of quality in education (Nikel and Lowe 2010).27 The approach
proposes seven conceptual dimensions – effectiveness,
efficiency, equity, responsiveness, relevance, reflexivity, and
sustainability (see Figure 5 below) – arranged so as to emphasize
that the quality of education is much like a ‘fabric’: that is, it is
at its strongest when ‘stretched’ or maintained in tension. The
framework emphasizes the need to seek a contextually relevant
balance among the seven dimensions, where ‘balance’ does
not imply a simple equalizing across all dimensions, even if that
were conceptually possible. The needs and the possibilities
for action within different educational contexts will vary and
decisions must be made over what is desirable and feasible
within a specific situation. The model represents a radical
departure from the input-process-output model, in that it
conceptualizes quality improvement in education as attempts
undertaken in a context defined by tensions between different
dimensions and on different systemic levels.
Figure 5
The ‘Fabric’ Model of Quality in Education
Efficiency
Effectiveness
Equiity
The Quality
of Education
Sustainability
Responsiveness
Relevance
Reflexivity
Source: Nikel & Lowe (2010).
Tikly & Barret (2007) and Tikly (2010)
This explicit recognition of possible differing values amongst
the various stakeholders involved in education (learners,
parents, teachers, government ... is precisely what the analytical
framework developed by Tikly and Barret (2007) is based on.
Within this conceptualization, the issue of the quality (and
effectiveness) of education cannot be understood without
an overall analysis of the historical, socioeconomic, political
27Nikel, J. & J. Lowe (2010). “Talking of fabric: a multi-dimensional model of
quality in Education. Compare: A Journal of Comparative and International
Education, 40(5), 589-605.
11
UNESCO Education Research and Foresight • Occasional papers
and cultural contexts within which a given education system
is operating. It is in this perspective that the framework aims
to help assess and understand the role of a given education
system in the exacerbation, reproduction or narrowing of
inequalities, in particular those based on traditional factors of
discrimination such as gender, income, and (ethnic, linguistic or
linguistic) minority status.
Two elements are important in their framework. The first is the
importance of the contextual factors (historical, socioeconomic,
political, and cultural) that shape education policy. Secondly,
the perspectives of local stakeholders, including those of
teachers, are considered key in understanding quality in a
given context. Indeed, the model stresses the importance of
taking into consideration the perceptions of stakeholders at the
local level in any attempt to improve the quality of education.
The model locates the issue of good quality education at
the intersection of factors that define the policy, home and
community, as well as school enabling environments at the
local level. These are summarized in Figure 6.
Figure 6
Tikly 2010 Model of Good Quality Education
Enabling policy
environment
• National debate
• Teacher development and incentives
• Headteacher training
• Assessment, monitoring and evaluation
• Relevant and inclusive curriculum
• Textbook procurement and distribution
• Targeted financial support for schools
• Stakeholder
engagement
• Local
support
for
schools
• School based
professional
development
• School self
evaluation
• Infrastructure
and resources
• Structured &
inclusive pedagogy
GOOD
QUALITY
EDUCATION
• School governance
& parental ‘voice’
• Home school links/
parental education
• School meals
& child health
Enabling school
environment
• Stakeholder
engagement
and community
‘voice’
• Parental education
• Parent support
for learning
• Books in the home
• A place to study
Enabling home and
community environment
Source: Tikly (2010).
The UNESCO Santiago model (2007)
The 2007 UNESCO Santiago model proposes five dimensions
of the quality of education that attempt to capture the
perspectives of the various educational stakeholders concerned
and the social action that they are engaged in at the local level.
In addition to the dimensions of effectiveness, efficiency and
equity that characterize an educational system, the model
stresses the dimension of relevance, which is analysed at two
distinct levels: (i) the relevance of the educational system in
responding appropriately to collective societal concerns, and
(ii) the relevance (or “pertinence”) to the daily conditions of
individual learners, their families and communities. The five
dimensions of this model are defined in the following manner:
12
UNESCO Education Research and Foresight • Occasional papers
Table 4
The Five Dimensions of the Quality of Education28
Relevance
Need for educational experiences to guarantee the kinds of learning that truly prepare
people for modern life, in line with the vision of four pillars of learning as proposed by
the UNESCO (2006) “Delors Report”.
Pertinence
Flexibility of educational experiences so that they can adjust to the particular conditions
of individuals, can value diversity, and can provide venues for participation.
Equity
The extent to which the universal right to education is effective for all, in view of creating
more just societies.
Effectiveness
The extent to which public action is effective in expanding access to basic education
(comprehensive early childhood care and education; universal completion of primary
education; ensuring student learning achievement).
Efficiency
The extent to which public services are efficient in the use of resources for the delivery
of education as a public good.
Gauging relevance through
the “four pillars” of learning
While indicators do exist to monitor system effectiveness,
efficiency and equity (as we have seen above), data on the
relevance of the educational process is much scarcer. The
Santiago model proposes the four pillars of learning, as
outlined in Learning: The treasure within (UNESCO 1996),
as a reference to gauging the relevance (and “pertinence”)
of educational processes: learning to know; learning to do;
learning to live together; learning to be.
In doing so, the framework highlights the underlying tension
between “learning to live together” (or the “socialization”
function of education), and the “learning to be” (or the
“individuation” function of education). Individuation may be
seen as the movement of individual intellectual, emotional and
spiritual differentiation and the activation of unique individual
potential. This is opposed to the constraining process of
socialization which may be seen as one of integration of an
“asocial” being into a given social group (space) at a given
moment in its evolution (time) through the activation of an
arbitrary set of values, norms, beliefs, cognitive schema,
knowledge, and skills encompassed in any given cultural
system. It is this process of reaching consensus between
stakeholders with differing perspectives, on what selection of
values, norms, beliefs, knowledge, and skills which is at stake
in the process of educational policy formulation within each
specific context.
The lifelong learning perspective
It is important to stress that the four pillars of learning29 were
envisaged against the backdrop of the notion of lifelong
learning, itself an adaptation of the concept of Lifelong
Education as initially conceptualized in the landmark Learning
to Be (UNESCO 1972). As such, assessing the quality of learning
28UNESCO (2007).
29Learning to be; Learning to do; Learning to know; and Learning to live
together (UNESCO 1996).
cannot be reduced to schooling or to formal education and
training sectors. Bearing in mind that learning happens
both within and outside of school, analysis of the social and
economic context of learners is essential to reaching a better
understanding of quality in education.30 Nor can employability
and socioeconomic integration be seen as the only purpose
or result of (successful) learning. In the lifelong learning
perspective, learning is about the development of the whole
person:
→→ It is about allowing every individual to participate in
society and making our society more cohesive. Learning
enables people to develop to their full potential and to play
an active role in their environments. It allows them to try new
things and to harness untapped talents. Along with enhancing
employment opportunities and professional standing, learning
lays the groundwork for fulfilment in life.31
The challenges of operationalizing a vision of lifelong learning
and monitoring the quality and relevance of education through
the four pillars of learning are daunting as they suppose
system-wide frameworks and interdisciplinary approaches.
But there have been some interesting recent attempts to do
so in the Canadian and European contexts. Indeed, drawing
on the pioneering work of the Canadian Council of Learning
in developing the Composite Lifelong Learning Index (2010),
the Bertelsmann Stiftung has developed an index for European
countries based on indicators that cover the various domains
of lifelong learning as defined by the four pillars of learning.
These European Lifelong Learning Indicators (ELLI) and
composite index are an attempt to capture at least a portion
of the concept of lifelong learning in the European context.
The selection of relevant indicators is necessarily conditioned
by the social, economic and cultural realities of each context
and it would be interesting to see how this composite index
may be adapted (or not) to ensure relevance to non-European
context-specific realities.
30 Resnick (1987).
31ELLI: European Lifelong Learning Indicators. Making lifelong learning
tangible. (Bertelsmann Stiftung, 2010).
13
UNESCO Education Research and Foresight • Occasional papers
> Implications for Assessing the Quality
of Education
The centrality of the issue of relevance
Arguably, the subjective concept of relevance is central to the
understanding of quality in education in any given context. The
quality of any educational process can only be assessed from
the particular standpoint of a specific category of stakeholders.
It is on the basis of what they believe to be the priority
goals assigned to education systems and the nature of the
outcomes desired, that each category of stakeholders shapes
its perception of what constitutes relevant education. Indeed,
each category of stakeholders – whether learners, teachers,
parents, employers, education authorities, local and/or national
government officials, international aid agencies and donors
– has its perception of what constitutes relevant educational
processes and how effective they are in contributing to the
desired outcomes they attach value to.
Whose perspective on goals
and outcomes of education?
Parents, teachers and educational authorities, for instance,
may value educational outcomes defined essentially in terms
of learning achievement and the cognitive development
of learners. Parents and communities also value social and
economic outcomes of education such as social promotion,
access to information and employment. Other stakeholders
such as national government officials, employers and
international aid agencies may value socio-economic
development outcomes such as increased productivity of
workers, economic growth, poverty reduction, reduction of
inequalities, and stronger integration of national economies
in globalized knowledge societies. Yet others may value the
civic and political outcomes of education in terms of greater
freedom, strengthened social cohesion, respect for cultural
diversity, and the development of active and responsible
citizenship. It is also important to stress the often overlooked
perception of the learners themselves and the meaning they
attribute to learning with reference to their expectations, their
identity, and their prospects for the future.32
The “Nash Equilibrium”:
Negotiation and consensus
This understanding is clearly echoed in the Communiqué of
the 2003 Ministerial Round Table on Quality Education33 which
highlights the need to take into account the multiple perceptions
32 See, for example, Charlot, E. Bautier, J.-Y. Rochex (1992).
33 Communiqué issued by 141 countries at the Ministerial Round Table on
Quality Education (Paris, 3-4 October 2003) organized during the General
Conference of UNESCO.
of different stakeholders on what constitutes relevant/quality
education. Indeed, the Communiqué emphasizes the need for
transparent consultations among the various stakeholders in
view of reaching a consensus on what the desired educational
outcomes are and on how best to reach them. Drawing a
parallel with game theory, education quality in any particular
context at any given point in time may be understood as the
consensus that best responds to the diverse interests of the
multiple stakeholders concerned and their perceptions of
the relevance of education required to fulfil them. The notion
of quality in education may thus be considered to be a sort
of Nash Equilibrium resulting from broad and transparent
consultations. The question of the quality of education can
therefore not be reduced to a set of purely technical issues, but
must necessarily be seen as a dynamic process of continuous
adjustment resulting from negotiations between the various
stakeholders involved.
→→ Quality cannot be proclaimed, simply because it cannot
be reduced to several general quantifiable figures and values,
neither to a set of processes of “quality control”. Quality
must be continuously observed, analyzed and adjusted in an
interactive manner by all the stakeholders involved. Such an
approach encourages all stakeholders to claim their rights and
fulfill their obligations with regard to this public good.34
Social pact on education
as a public good
As a result, and beyond the various conceptualizations and
multiple analytical approaches, the starting question in any
discussion about quality in education is that of determining
what the desired outcomes of any educational process are to
be. What is the combination of individual and collective social,
civic, economic and political outcomes that are desired in a
given context? This is necessarily related to the question of
the range and nature of stakeholders involved in education,
their perceptions of what are the most important outcomes
of the education process at the individual, local and national
levels, and the necessary process of negotiation required in
order to reach consensus on a social pact35 on education as
a public good. Given the importance attached to educational
development by such a large range of stakeholders and the
significant individual and collective efforts made and resources
invested in the sector, it is only legitimate that sound attempts
be sought to determine how well educational provision is
producing the range of desired outcomes.
34 Meyer-Bisch (2009: 11). Our translation.
35 See for example, Tedesco (1998).
14
UNESCO Education Research and Foresight • Occasional papers
Assessing quality in education:
beyond measurement
The need for multiple and
complementary approaches
Having said this, assessing the desired outcomes of
educational processes cannot be reduced to measurement.
Indeed, not all educational outcomes can (or even should) be
measured quantitatively. Even when considering one category
of educational outcomes such as learning, only some types
of learning outcomes (of the cognitive type) lend themselves
easily to measurement. Other types of educational outcomes in particular, social, civic and political outcomes of educational
processes - can and must be assessed, even if they cannot
necessarily be measured. The question then is to determine
what assessment methodologies are available and are most
appropriate to capture the effectiveness of educational
processes in producing diverse educational outcomes. As
we have seen above, while dimensions such as equity and
efficiency of educational systems can indeed be measured
and quantified, the essential dimension of relevance cannot
be measured in the same fashion, but rather, through other
methodologies guided by such references as the four “pillars
of learning”. In assessing the multidimensional notion of
quality in education, it is thus imperative to remain open to
multiple approaches, and to the necessary combination of
complementary methodologies that help best capture the
complexity of the issues at hand.
The differing perceptions among diverse stakeholders of what
constitutes the main goals and outcomes of education, and
thus, the relevance of any specific educational and training
processes, dictate the nature of the analysis (rights-based,
technical economic or sociological), the importance of various
dimensions and clusters of factors to be examined, as well as
the selection of methodologies and indicators to use. It would
be sterile, in our view, to oppose the three conceptualizations
and approaches to quality; that is, the Learner-centred,
the Input-process-output, and the Multidimensional Social
Interaction approaches. If the technical-rational Input-processoutput approach dominates international discourse on the
quality of education, it is most certainly because it lends itself
to a relatively simple methodology in approaching a complex
phenomenon. Having said this, and despite the methodological
challenges that it implies, the third approach can invigorate the
global debate on quality improvement in education.
15
UNESCO Education Research and Foresight • Occasional papers
>References
Barrett, M., Chawla-Duggan, R., Lowe, J., Nikel, J. & E. Ukpo
(2006). “The Concept of Quality in Education: A review
of the ‘international’ literature on the concept of quality
in education”. EdQual Working Paper No. 3. University
of Bristol /University of Bath.
Baudelot, C. & R. Establet (2009). L’élitisme républicain. L’école
française à l’épreuve des comparaisons internationales.
Paris: Le seuil.
Bertelsmann Stiftung (2010). ELLI: European Lifelong Learning
Indicators. Making lifelong learning tangible.
Blanco, R. (2007).Quality Education For All: A human rights
issue. EFA/PRELAC Background Document. Santiago
de Chile: UNESCO Regional Bureau for Latin America
and the Caribbean.
Charlot, B., Bautier, É., & J.-Y. Rochex (1992). Ecole et savoir
dans les banlieues... et ailleurs. Paris: Armand Colin.
Corbett, M. (2008). “The Edumometer: The commodification
of learning from Galton to the PISA.” Journal for Critical
Education Policy Studies, 6(1).
Encinas-Martin, M. (2009). Learning Counts: International
seminar on assessing and improving quality learning for
all. (Paris, 28-30 October 2008). Paris: UNESCO.
ECOSOC. (2011). Implementing the Internationally Agreed
Goals and Commitments in Regard to Education.
Report of the United Nations Secretary-General. New
York.
Heneveld, W., & H. Craig (1995). Schools Count: World Bank
Project Designs and the Quality of Primary Education in
Sub-Saharan Africa. Washington, DC: World Bank.
Kellaghan, T., & V. Greaney (2001). Using Assessment to Improve
the Quality of Education. Paris: UNESCO International
Institute for Educational Planning.
Marope, M. (2011). “General Education Quality Diagnostic/
Analysis and Monitoring Framework”. Concept Note:
Paris: UNESCO (February 2011).
Meyer-Bisch, P. (2009). La qualité de l’éducation:
l’accomplissement d’un droit culturel dans l’indivisibilité
des droits de l’homme. Fribourg: University of Fribourg
(Switzerland).
Mourshed M., Chijioke C. & Barber M. (2010). How the World’s
Most Improved School Systems Keep Getting Better.
McKinsey & Co.
Nikel, J. & J. Lowe (2010). “Talking of Fabric: A multidimensional model of quality in education”. Compare:
A Journal of Comparative and International Education,
40(5), 589-605.
Pigozzi, M. J. (2006). “What is the ‘quality’ of education’? (A
UNESCO perspective)”. in Ross & Jurgens Genevois
(Eds.) Cross-national studies of the quality of education:
Planning their design and managing their impact. Paris:
International Institute for Educational Planning pp. 3949.
Pigozzi, M. J. (2004) “The ministerial viewpoint on the quality of
education”, in Prospects, no. 130, Policy Dialogue and
Education, pp. 141-149.
Resnick, L. B. (1987). “Learning in school and out”. Educational
Researcher, 16(9), pp. 13-20.
Robin, A. (2008). Education for All, the Quality Imperative
and the Problem of Pedagogy. London: University of
London/Institute of Education.
Ross, K. N. & L. Mählck (1990). Planning the quality of
education: The collection and use of data for informed
decision-making. Paris: UNESCO International Institute
for Educational Planning.
Saito, M. & F. van Capelle (2009). “Approaches to Monitoring
the Quality of Education in Developing Countries –
Searching for Better Research-Policy Linkages”. Paper
based on the presentation during: The International
Symposium on Quality Education for All – Approaches
to Monitoring and Improving the Quality of Education
(Berlin, 11-12 May 2009). Paris: UNESCO International
Institute for Educational Planning.
Tedesco, J. C. (1998). The New Educational Pact: Education,
competitiveness and citizenship in modern society.
Paris, Geneva, UNESCO International Bureau of
Education.
Tikly, L. & A. M. Barrett (2007). Education Quality; Research
priorities and approaches in the global era. Bristol:
University of Bristol.
UNESCO. (2011). End-of-Decade Notes for Education for All,
Goal 6. Bangkok: EFA Technical Working Group for Asia
Pacific Region. (September 2011 draft).
UNESCO. (2007a). The State of Education in Latin America and
the Caribbean: guaranteeing quality education for all:
A regional report, reviewing and assessing the progress
toward Education for All within the framework of the
Regional Education Project (EFA/PRELAC). Santiago de
Chile: UNESCO Regional Bureau for Latin America and
the Caribbean.
16
UNESCO Education Research and Foresight • Occasional papers
UNESCO. (2007b). Dakar +7: EFA Top Priority for Integrated
Sector-Wide Policies. Dakar: UNESCO Regional Office
for Education in Africa (BREDA).
UNESCO. (2007c). Enhancing Learning: From access to success.
Report of the first experts’ meeting: Defining areas of
action (Paris, 26-28 March 2007). Paris: UNESCO.
UNESCO. (2005). EFA Global Monitoring Report 2005: The
quality imperative. Paris: UNESCO.
UNESCO. (2002). EFA Global Monitoring Report 2002: Is the
world on track? Paris: UNESCO.
UNESCO. (2000). Dakar Framework for Action.
UNESCO. (1990). World Declaration and Framework for Action
to meet Basic Learning Needs. Jomtien, Thailand.
UNICEF. (2009). Child Friendly Schools. New York: UNICEF.
UNICEF. (2007). Quality of Education. New York: UNICEF.
UNICEF. (2000). Defining Quality in Education. A paper
presented at the meeting of the International Working
Group on Education, Florence, Italy. June 2000.