INSTRUCTORES DE PLANTA, 96 INSTRUCTORES DE CONTRATO, 10 INSTRUCTORES DE DESPLAZADOS, 60

Teachers are the focus on MOI target 4c, which reads: ‘By 2030, substantially increase

the supply of qualified teachers, including through international cooperation for teacher training in developing countries, especially least developed countries and small island developing States.’. The inclusion of teachers as MOI targets was controversial and

generated debate. On the other hand, it is claimed that some groups did not want any mention of teachers in SDG4 at all:

there was a definite group of individuals and agencies around – what became goal 4 – that had a definite agenda, that agenda did not include adult and lifelong learning, that agenda did not include teachers or inputs or environments (Interviewee).

This information is in some ways shocking, teachers are central to education, and yet it suggests that specific groups and agencies wanted no mention of teachers. In earlier discussions that predated the final SDG4 framework, a target for teachers was

articulated as “Target 6: By 2030, all governments ensure that all learners are taught by

qualified, professionally-trained, motivated and well-supported teachers” (Muscat Declaration, 2014). This particular formation did not make it into the final iteration of

SDG4, the most likely explanation is to reduce government obligations and possible associated costs. Another plausible explanation links back to the middle period of EFA and a growth in ‘para-teachers’. These were unqualified teachers, which had support from influential actors, including the World Bank. With the increasing involvement of the private sector in delivering education in low-resource setting (with the backing of influential actors such as the World Bank and influential education donors), it seems feasible that references to qualified teachers were fought against to allow unqualified teachers, and/or technology to replace qualified teachers.

In the end a fractious consensus was reached, and teachers were included as an MOI target. According to more than one interviewee, the lobbying of teachers’ unions was key in teachers being included at all:

they were quite influential in [getting] 4c in SDG4, they were not that happy that it was seen as means of implementation, they thought it should be separate target and not means of implementation target. That was also agreed [by the] EFA steering committee but I think they [the teachers’ unions] were ok they were able to get it under SDG4 if not where they wanted it most (Interviewee).

This quotation, which is not from a teachers’ union or civil society representative, alludes to a need to advocate for more recognition of teachers’ contribution to SDG4.

The final decision to include teachers in the means of implementation targets was resisted, as one interviewee explains:

there was a lot of resistance on teachers being a target under

implementation; for teachers to be in the implementation strategy 4c, not only from the teachers’ unions but from others who felt teachers should be standalone target within core SDG4, but I remember cautioning people within the OWG if we do not have teachers as part of implementation we would lose it altogether. One of the arguments was whatever the targets 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ,6 - teachers were critical to all the other targets, so how could you have a separate target? So, the compromise was putting it the means of implementation, you still gave it recognition as a feature but then the

advocacy would have to be just as you have the infrastructure teachers are a critical element to all 7 [outcome] targets (Interviewee).

This position sees a logic to include teachers as a MOI target, another interviewee was less convinced:

Many were and are still so excited about the fact that there is a teacher target that there wasn’t as much critical reflection around what it actually meant to have that target as a means of implementation target. Let me put it this way, most people wouldn’t be familiar enough with the SDGs and everything around it to be able to have that more critical reflection around whether or not teachers should be part, or where they should be placed, people are just very pleased that there is a commitment to teachers. (interviewee).

The inclusion of teachers as a MOI target can be considered logical given teachers are not an outcome of education. However, the risk is that seeing teachers as a means to end, denies them agency. Although not explicitly articulated, this points towards a behaviourist concept of quality. Teachers become a tool in an education focused on outcomes. If teachers or learners do not have space to create knowledge, they simply deposit and receive knowledge. This type of teaching and learning has been described as ‘banking education’ (Freire, 1996). It has been claimed that “[t]he quality of an education system cannot exceed the quality of its teachers.” (McKinsey report, 2007, p.13), equally learning does not occur in the absence of teachers and quality teaching (cf. Husbands 2013).

Overall, having teachers as an MOI, is arguably better than no reference to teachers at all, and the targets also call for teachers to be qualified. This is of course central, teachers need training and recognised qualification, additionally having motivated and supported teachers is also important for quality and international law recognises these rights. The joint ILO/UNESCO ‘Recommendation concerning the Status of Teachers’ (1966) calls for provisions on teacher preparation, employment, career advance and promotion, security or tenure. Tomaševski (2001) argues that teachers education, recruitment, labour rights, trade union freedoms all contribute to making education “available” under human rights standards (ibid, p. 12, box 1.). The decision not to include any attention to teacher’s working conditions in the final text arguably reflects different ideological position on inputs and/or process and has implications for quality. Teachers are a key to education, through their pedagogical practice, in creating

knowledge and sharing values of tolerance and non-discrimination, at their best they are important role models. That is not to say every teacher embodies these

characteristics or values, however, these are qualities that teachers can bring to the classroom and to education as whole.31

Teachers should also be reflective of the population at large e.g. female teachers, and in respect to teachers with disabilities, this is more than desirable, it is a human rights obligation with State Parties called on to take “appropriate measures to employ

teachers, including teachers with disabilities, who are qualified in sign language and/or Braille, and to train professionals and staff who work at all levels of education.” (Article

24.4, CRPD, 2006). However, target 4.c. offers no direction on this and there is no requirement to disaggregate data on teachers by sex or disability, undermining equity and inclusion which are central to quality (at least from a rights-based perspective).

In summary, taking teachers as proxy for quality in SDG4 suggests the understanding leans less towards a human rights-based approach and instead to a narrower

understanding of quality. If teacher motivation, experience, conditions and rights are

31 _{I acknowledge that teachers do not always uphold the values of inclusion, equality or quality either}

through lack of good practice or more sinister actions that amount to abuse and a violation of children’s right. For the purpose of this discussion on policy I offer what can be considered best practice.

neglected, it is hard for quality education to thrive. As Tomaševski points out there are “a myriad of human rights issues which particularly affect teachers [ . . . ] if the rights of

teachers are not respected and protected, it is impossible to imagine that this may be different for the rights of children.” (Tomaševski, 2001, p 23). This argument by

Tomaševski is one that cannot be ignored.

6.3.1.2. Summary of this section

Overall, my analysis leads me to conclude that that quality is weakly defined if not completely ambiguous in the targets of SDG4. At best this is the result of a fudge to achieve compromise, more cynically it might be argued that the word quality is dropped into targets as a discursive distraction from the narrow focus on outcomes, which ultimately are seen as the proxy for quality.