SlideShare utilise les cookies pour améliorer les fonctionnalités et les performances, et également pour vous montrer des publicités pertinentes. Si vous continuez à naviguer sur ce site, vous acceptez l’utilisation de cookies. Consultez nos Conditions d’utilisation et notre Politique de confidentialité.
SlideShare utilise les cookies pour améliorer les fonctionnalités et les performances, et également pour vous montrer des publicités pertinentes. Si vous continuez à naviguer sur ce site, vous acceptez l’utilisation de cookies. Consultez notre Politique de confidentialité et nos Conditions d’utilisation pour en savoir plus.
The role of TAG and extended TAG
in SDG 4
Silvia Montoya, Director
UNESCO Institute for Statistics
First meeting of the Extended TAG
Paris, July 30-31
Monitoring SDG 4
The proposed overarching education goal (SDG 4) aims to
ensure equitable and inclusive quality education and lifelong
learning for all by 2030.
To gain insight on countries’ views and expectations of a
mechanism as well as their needs for ensuring proper
monitoring of the SDG goals.
To work out the finer details of the indicators ensuring they
are clearly defined, actionable and measurable.
A brief history of the TAG
Established in 2014 by UNESCO chaired by the UIS
Members included experts from the EFA GMR team, OECD,
UNICEF, the World Bank and UNESCO itself.
March 2014- May 2015 a proposal for the thematic set of
indicators was developed
November 2014- January 2015 was held a global consultation on
May 2015: the proposal was incorporated to the Framework for
Action at the WEF in Incheon, Republic of Korea.
The WEF recommended the TAG be expanded to include civil
society and a representative number of UNESCO Member States to
further refine the proposal. The extended TAG conducts ongoing
open consultations led by regional leaders. 3
What did we learn about data and
Sources (international, national)
Some guidelines for the questions
Three questions below request a balanced feedback on
different areas of the indicators:
Thinking about each specific indicator and its individual
capability to provide answers on relevance, alignment and
Making the link between the necessity of measuring what is
politically relevant; and
Considering the constraints in some areas to have the best
1. Are the proposed indicators easily understood and
allow a clear narrative regarding measuring the
progress in participation in education?
2. Do the proposed indicators reflect very relevant and
critical policy themes within each of the referenced
3. Within each target, is there a need to establish a
balance between indicators that are available now but
not very well-aligned versus those that are better
aligned but not as readily available?
Some other areas of concerns
Should we include temporary placeholders?
Learning Outcomes. In the absence of a universal comparable
metrics for all countries in the world, should we use temporary
placeholder indicators until consensus is reached on
appropriate alternatives such as
UIS Index of Learning Outcomes; or
some other measure of institutional or technical characteristics of the
assessment systems (for instance having an independent planning or
assessment unit in the country or not ).
Gross Enrolment Ratio (GER) for pre-primary while the
indicator on participation in all forms of organized learning is
being developed? Or a GER for TVET (in schools and colleges)
while the participation rate of 15-24 y.o. in all TVET is being
Some other areas of concerns (2)
What about the balance between sources?
Population household-based surveys will allow for more
disaggregation but are more costly, less frequent.
What about the use of a composite index that
combines processes and outcomes that are under
request by some countries?
For instance thinking of an indicator of the type of the
Brazilian IDEB, the American AYP, Argentina’s IECEP or
IMESA, Colombian ICSE.
Next steps – the extended TAG
Target date Activity Purpose
Ongoing Regional consultation
Elicit regional views on
existing proposal before
first in-person meeting
30-31July First in-person meeting Present regional views
and next steps
July-September Virtual meetings, as needed Elicit further regional
views on existing proposal
First week of October Second in-person meeting Present proposal
integrating regional views
1-2 October EFA Steering Committee Review Framework for
6 November UNESCO high-level meeting Adopt the Framework for
End of November Deadline for UNSC inputs IAEG-SDGs to provide
draft indicator framework 9
Key areas:Completion, Access and
MAIN POINT: There are some indicators with difficult
interpretation in terms of showing if there is
progress or not (raised by UK initially). More effort to
be done to clarify what the target will be.
Participation rate in organized learning (24 months – age
of starting primary education).
GER in tertiary education
Participation rate in TVET
Key areas: Completion, Access and
Comments on the indicators.
Questioning the GER for pre-primary education as the
temporary placeholder (UNICEF)
Questioning the % of children overage: problems to track
age properly but also conceptual problems of the
Equity has to be a requisite for selecting indicators (Brazil
strong on this, e.g. of OOSC indicator and disaggregation
Learning and Skills
Early grades (MELQ)
Areas: ICT and Global Citizenship
Stepping Stones: 3 strands
Disaggregation many context
Teacher numbers, deployment, qualifications, motivation
Class size/PTR, minimum standards and school conditions
Pupil-computer ratio 12
Stepping stone approach
How to articulate at the global /regional/country
Interpretation of the indicators (when is good?)
Need to precise data sources and regional
Define the criteria of how to prioritize indicators
The need of costing and to set priorities
Capacity building and human resources needs are to
be highlighted as part of the investment for having
better data and better data analytics
UNESCO Institute for Statistics