In a blog marking the transition to SDG4, Cream Wright, former UNICEF Global Chief of Education, made an important observation. “ Those who do not learn from the past repeat the mistakes of history. A similar saying in some African languages translates as: if you are unsure of where you are going to, be certain of where you are coming from. As we ponder a post-2015 agenda, and look back to what we’ve learnt since Dakar [. . .]” (Wright, 2015). His words are a reminder that the past shapes the future.
In the preceding sections I have considered the legacies of the MDGs and EFA on the development of SDG4. Just as SDG4 was shaped by the MDGs and EFA, these global goals and SDG4 were also shaped by the wider geo-political context. Education and education policy, as discussed in the next chapter and throughout this thesis, are shaped by and shape wider society. This section provides a short review of globally significant factors and events that, directly or indirectly, have shaped education globally from 1990 – the first EFA declaration - until the SDGs were adopted.
At the time of the Jomtien Declaration, progress on education was slow and uneven. At primary level there were almost as many children out of school than in school in some regions, especially girls. In South Asia, for example, there were 39.4 million girls in school (net enrolment) and 38.8 girls out of school; in Sub-Saharan Africa 25.2 million girls were enrolled in primary school (net) and 25.9 were out of school (UNESCO and UNICEF, 1993). The slowing rates of enrolments in the 80’s was a motivating factor in the coming together of governments, the UN and civil society in Jomtien, and the drive for action on education (Osttveit, 2000)
At the time of the ‘World Declaration on Education for All’ in 1990, the world was witness to a massive geopolitical shift. A thawing of the cold war tensions -
from ‘perestroika’ beginning in the 80’s to the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1991 - marked a new era of citizens’ action and the end of old structures. Peace accords were bringing to an end the bloody wars in Central America. The official end of Apartheid in South Africa and the election of Nelson Mandela in 1994 strengthened a view that old world orders were shifting, promising change and offering hope to many. However, it should not be forgotten that at the same time conflict, persecution and genocide were affecting millions of people on the basis of race and ethnicity, including Muslim communities in the former Yugoslavia and Tutsi’s in Rwanda. Liberia and the DRC, among others, also witnessed brutal civil wars. While children in these countries faced the most
horrendous circumstances and any progress in education was reserved by conflict and the trauma experienced by children and their communities, Jomtien also marked the beginning of a new era for education. A midterm review of EFA post- Jomtien showed progress overall, with 50 million more children in school than in 1990. However, conflict, poverty and discrimination continued to destroy the opportunity and hope of education for millions of children and youth in spite of the early EFA commitments. In countries such as Sierra Leon, the devasting civil war that raged through the 1990’s “took the nation’s education system as an early casualty, wiping out 1,270 primary
schools and forcing 67 percent of all-school aged children out of school in the year 2001”
(Ozisik, 2015). Overall,
millions of people remain untouched by the optimism of Jomtien and that much of its promise remains unfulfilled. Education may be high on the rhetorical agendas of governments, but all too many commitments remain unmet. There are too few early childhood care programmes in developing countries, and in all too many countries poorly qualified teachers are still working for low pay amid deteriorated infrastructures (Osttveit, 2000, p. 98- 99).
The impact of conflict and displacement as a result of disasters remains a major barrier to education (see further discussion at the end of this section).
Throughout the 1990’s and the early 2000’s, approaches to development were beginning to shift, set in motion by the adoption of the Declaration on the Right to Development in 1986 and the Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action in 1993.
This encouraged all UN activities to focus on the promotion and protection of human rights, and what became known as a human rights-based approach gained momentum. It shifted the motion of development away from being seen as charitable endeavours with passive recipients to a vision of development within the framework of rights- holders claiming that duty-bearers meet their obligations.
By 2000, when the 6 EFA goals and the MDGs were adopted, the global education reality was one where millions of children were still denied their right to education. While the structures first put in place under the auspices of UNESCO for coordinating EFA after Jomtien remained and were strengthen, a notable change had begun for education, with civil society exercising their voice much more effectively for the right to education. In 1999, a small group of individuals representing a number of International non-governmental organisations (INGOs) came together to form the Global Campaign for Education (GCE). GCE was a civil society coalition actively campaigning for children’s right to education, and it would become a significant force in the EFA movement. GCE raised concerns about the crisis facing education that -according to one of its founders -
the UN system seemed in denial over, responding “Crisis? What crisis?” Yet despite the
promises made a decade earlier in Jomtien, over 100 million children were not in school and there were major concerns about quality and equity.” (Archer, 2015).
An evaluation of the impact of civil society (including but not limited to GCE) on EFA found that the “engagement of civil society, in all its diversity, has been a central part of
the story of EFA. It has transformed the EFA “initiative” and agenda into an EFA
movement which, without civil society, would not exist.” (UNESCO, 2015d).7 While civil
society advocacy helped move the agenda on education, major global events also impacted it. With the Cold War fading into the past, a new global war was about to begin that would often blur the lines between development and security.
The year following the adoption of EFA and the Millennium Declaration, the United States of America - a leading actor and donor of overseas development aid - was subject
to a major terrorist attack. The attacks of 9/11 that left almost 3000 people dead sent shockwaves through American society and the world. The administration of President George W. Bush determined to seek retribution and responded with what became known as the ‘War on Terror’. The result for international development is described by Green (2008) as profound and disastrous. Green (ibid) goes on to argue that the resulting ‘War on Terror’ eroded human rights in its efforts to vanquish those seen as enemies. However, Green (ibid) argues that it failed to address the political, social and economic drivers of conflict, noting that “since 2001, terrorism has become a
justification for seeking military solutions to problems that are more than military in nature, and poor people are paying a terrible price” (ibid, p. 402). For education, the
aftermath of 9/11 and the subsequent War on Terror’ created multiple long-term consequences. Afghanistan and Iraq were among the countries that felt its immediate and long-term impacts. In the short term both countries, already plagued by history of conflict and dictatorship, became the focused on sustained military operations by the US and its allied forces. The impact was not only the suffering and destruction that conflict causes but also an erosion of the trust in development actors.
Novelli (2010) offers a very useful exposition of the crossover of donor governments’ security agendas with development and changing aid flows, as well as on the risk faced by humanitarian actors to undertake their work safely, in a climate where they were often perceived as part of the security operation. Rather than limit aid flows, the War on Terror saw an increase in aid directed at the countries against which it was being waged. Novelli (ibid) notes that “[i]n 2006 Iraq and Afghanistan accounted for over 60%
of all aid to severely conflict-affected countries” (ibid, p. 454). Other analysis of aid to
education for conflict-affected countries shows that during this period Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan were the 3 largest recipients of aid from the United States (Save the Children, 2008)8. Duffield (2002, cited in Novelli, 2010) argues that the promotion of
development served a security function - a point illustrated by Novelli (ibid) with a direct quote from the then US Secretary of State, Colin Powell: “[ . . . ] we have the best
relationship with the NGOs who are such a force multiplier for us, such and important
part of our combat team” (ibid, p. 456). The real or perceived linkages between the
work of NGOs as part of the security apparatus (which praised NGOs) led to a mistrust of humanitarian workers, including those working in education, and in some cases resulted in insurgents’ targeting of aid workers - as well as the targeting of schools, teachers and students - that continues even today.
While global access to education increased and the financing of education grew (albeit not fast enough) in the 2000’s, another major shock was to slow progress before the end of the decade. The 2008 financial crisis led to a major global recession and reactive austerity measures, with worldwide consequences. Some countries, such as France and Italy, reduced overall levels of aid, and even when countries pledged to maintain aid spending, it was actually worth less due to currency depreciation (Kharas, 2009). For education, the crisis risked the stagnation or rolling back of progress made in
enrolment, completion and gender parity (UNESCO, 2010). It was argued that:
Such an outcome would be indefensible. Children living in the urban slums and rural villages of the world’s poorest countries played no part in the reckless banking practices and regulatory failures that caused the economic crisis. Yet they stand to suffer for the gambling that took place on Wall Street and other financial centres by losing their chance for an education that could lift them out of poverty. (Ibid, p. 19)
While organisations such as UNESCO along with some donors - including the UK (Velde and Massa (2009), - sought to mitigate the impact on education, UNESCO’s fears were realised. In a 2014 paper, UNESCO highlighted how progress on education had
stagnated from 2007 onwards, despite the pledges made on EFA in Dakar (UNESCO, 2014b). The most significant slowdown was seen in sub-Saharan Africa, with the region’s share of out of school children increasing to half of the world’s total out of school children in years 2007 to 2012 (ibid). Data also showed that between 2011 and 2013 the number of children out-of-school globally actually increased, with 124 million out of school at the end of 2013, compared to 122 in 2011 (UNESCO, 2015b). This stagnation and reversal in progress correlates with the financial crisis and its aftermath, and is clearly shown in levels of aid to education. UNESCO (2016a) noted that “[after
high income countries, and have barely budged since then” (Ibid, p.1). It was only in
2017 that education grew again for the first time in years (UNESCO, 2018a).
This thesis does not consider SDG4 policy processes or the final text in relation to conflict and crisis, but both conflict and natural disasters remain significant barriers to education that require attention.9 In the run up to the adoption of SDG4 and since that
point, the impact of conflict and crisis continue to slow and also reverse progress on education. Among the most highly publicised is the war in Syria and the related displacement crisis. Millions are missing out on their education, with little hope of an end in sight, and the children of Syria are not alone in this. Globally, an estimated 75 million children have their education disrupted by conflict or other crises every year. A recent report estimates that unless urgent action is taken to address the impact of conflict and violence on education by 2030, three-quarters of children living in countries affected by chronic community violence and conflict will not be on track to achieve the basics in learning (Theirworld, 2018).10
While the MDGs and EFA did drive progress on education, other significant geopolitical factors created barriers and led unwelcome consequences for education. As discussed above, when SDG4 was adopted in 2015, 264 million children remained out of school and millions more were not learning the basics - with poverty, discrimination and
conflict being major factors in an overall lack of progress. This was the global context for education in which SDG4 global policy formulation (see chapter 5) took place.