Paper co-authors: Allison Anderson, Center for Universal Education, Brookings Institution, Fellow: AAnderson@brookings.edu Kate Anderson Simons, Policy Analyst and Technical Lead, Learning Metrics Task Force, Center for Universal Education, Brookings Institution: ksimons@brookings.edu

Toward Universal Learning: Defining Global Ambition on Learning Post-2015

Abstract: To define global ambition on improving learning and inform the post-2015 global development policy discourse, the Center for Universal Education (CUE) at the Brookings Institution and the UNESCO Institute for Statistics (UIS) co-convened the Learning Metrics Task Force in mid-2012. This 18-month-long project aims to harness the collective expertise of the global education community in order to identify common learning goals and targets. The task force draws on the input of technical working groups and public consultation to make its recommendations. The first report of the LMTF, "Toward Universal Learning: What Every Child Should Learn" was released in February 2013 and described a broad framework for learning, encompassing seven domains and beginning in early childhood and extending through the transition to work and life. The domains go beyond literacy and numeracy to include domains such as social and emotional, physical well-being, and culture and the arts. The second report, Toward Universal Learning: A Global Framework for Measuring Learning, describes how learning can be measured in these domains at the national, regional, and global levels. The third report, scheduled for release in November 2013, will focus on how various actors can implement these recommendations to improve learning levels around the world. This presentation will highlight the LMTF findings and reflect upon the issues and debates surrounding global learning goals, especially as related to the post-2015 development framework.

mailto:AAnderson@brookings.eduhttp://www.brookings.edu/research/reports/2013/02/learning-metricshttp://www.brookings.edu/research/reports/2013/02/learning-metricshttp://www.brookings.edu/research/reports/2013/07/global-framework-measuring-learning

Sub-theme Title: Futures of Development Assistance

UKFIET International Conference on Education and Development Education & Development Post 2015: Reflecting, Reviewing, Re-visioning. Oxford, 10 12 September

2013

Toward Universal Learning: Defining Global Ambition on Learning Post-2015

Over the past fifteen years, thanks in large part to the second Millennium Development Goal (MDG) of universal primary education, major advances have been made in enrolling millions of children worldwide.i However, despite significant progress in getting more girls and boys into school, those gains have been uneven, and learning levels remain unacceptably low. Too often children leave both primary and secondary levels without acquiring the basic knowledge, skills, and competencies they need to lead productive, healthy lives and to attain sustainable livelihoods. In addition, economic, gender and ethnic disparities, and factors such as conflict and disability, still prevent millions of girls and boys from even attending school.

There is a global learning crisis, which is hitting the poorest, most marginalized children and youth particularly hard. According to estimates in the 2012 EFA Global Monitoring Report:ii

Approximately 120 million children either never make it to school or drop out before their fourth year;

In 123 low and middle income countries almost 200 million youth have not completed primary education, 58% of these are female; and

At least 250 million primary-school-age children around the world are not able to read, write or count well enough to meet minimum learning standards, including girls and boys who have spent at least four years in school.

Worse still, we may not know the full extent of the learning crisis as these figures are likely to be a gross underestimate, given that many countries do not measure basic reading or arithmetic in primary grades.iii

Data show that learning levels not necessarily years in school are what drive many social and economic returns on investments in education.iv Empirical studies provide robust evidence that it is the acquisition of knowledge and skills (cognitive and behavioral), rather than schooling, that promotes employability, productivity, and growth. For a major part of the worlds population, however, education systems fall far short of these expectations. Poor quality education are jeopardizing the future of millions of young people across high-, medium- and low-income countries alike.v In shaping education for the future, efforts to expand enrollment, retention and completion at all levels must be accompanied by policies to enhance educational quality and measure learning outcomes in order to improve quality.vi vii

With a new set of global development goals on the post-2015 horizon, what can the education community do now to catalyze a shift in global focus and investment from universal access to ensuring access plus improving learning opportunities and outcomes worldwide?

The Learning Metrics Task Force

To help answer this question, UNESCO, through its Institute for Statistics (UIS), and the Center for Universal Education (CUE) at the Brookings Institution have joined efforts to convene the Learning Metrics Task Force (LMTF) to identify common learning goals to improve learning opportunities and outcomes for children and youth worldwide. Through a group of high-level task force members, three technical working groups, and an open global consultation process, the LMTF has received input and expertise from more than 1,600 individuals in at least 100 countries to date. Approximately 50 percent of the task force and working group members and nearly 75 percent of participants in the public consultations are from organizations and agencies in the Global South.

The task forcecomprised of representatives of national and regional governments, EFA-convening agencies, regional political bodies, civil society organizations, and donor agenciesis engaged in an 18-month process to build consensus around three essential questions addressed in the following order:

Standards (Phase I): What learning is important globally? Methods & Measures (Phase II): How should it be measured? Implementation (Phase III): How can measurement of learning improve

education quality and learning outcomes?

The task forces 18-month-long process of research, global consultation and consensus-building on learning measurement with education stakeholders around the world aims to not only develop concrete, actionable recommendations to help countries, regional and international organizations measure learning outcomes at national and global levels, but also to translate those recommendations into action through the organizations and networks of the task force members and partners. Beyond project end, the goal is to ensure that learning is a focus of all education discussions and that the education community uses measurement and global advocacy to improve learning outcomes and opportunities for all children and youth.

http://www.brookings.edu/about/centers/universal-education/learning-metrics-task-force

As originally conceived, the job of the Learning Metrics Task Force is to build consensus around global aspiration for learning and the measurement of learning outcomes. The task force recognizes that this is only one small piece of the larger quality puzzle, albeit an important one. Assessments alone will not improve the quality of instruction or learning environments; rather, they provide a better understanding of outcomes to enable policymakers and educators to develop strategies for improving learning, while taking into account many other factors.

Phase I

Phase I of the project sought to identify the learning end-goal by answering the question: What do all children and youth need to learn in order to succeed in the 21st century?

Given the diversity of structures, places, and times at which children and youth learn, it is a challenge to define what outcomes related to learning are important, especially at a global level. Furthermore, to develop a framework that would be relevant for the next 15 years, the task force recognized that it would have to take a step back from what is measurable today and consider first what learning is important for the 21st century. Considering recommendations from a working group of experts, the task force decided that there are important competencies that all children and youth should master no matter where they live in the world. Moreover, feedback from interviews with key stakeholders and global consultations pointed to a growing demand globally for measuring learning in multiple areas, not just literacy and numeracy. Accordingly, the task force set forth a broad, holistic definition of learning that encompasses seven domains, with various competencies in each, as important for all children and youth to develop55.viii The seven domains are:

Physical well-being (subdomain examples: physical health and hygiene, food and nutrition, physical activity)

Social and emotional (subdomain examples: social and community values, civic values, mental health and well-being)

Culture and the arts (subdomain examples: creative arts, cultural knowledge, self- and community identify, awareness of and respect for diversity)

Literacy and communication (subdomain examples: speaking and listening, vocabulary, writing, reading)

Learning approaches and cognition (subdomain examples: persistence and attention, cooperation, problem solving, self-direction, critical thinking)

Numeracy and mathematics (subdomain examples: number concepts and operations, geometry and patterns, mathematics application, data and statistics)

Science and technology (subdomain examples: scientific inquiry, life science, physical science, earth science, awareness and use of digital technology)

This holistic framework of learning domains was developed by drawing on existing global policies and dialogues, such as EFA and the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child; research supporting the importance of learning in these domains for human development, economic growth and prosperity; and results from global public consultation, in which more than 500 individuals in 57 countries provided feedback. The overwhelming majority of participants in the global consultation, especially those from the Global South, argued for a broad definition of learning that goes beyond basic literacy and numeracy.6

Phase II

After establishing what children should learn, Phase II of the project investigated the question: How will we know whether learning is occurring under each of the seven domains? More specifically: How can we measure and track progress in learning at the global and national levels? The Measures and Methods Working Group of 57 experts in education and assessment worked to provide technical guidance to help the task force address this question.

Box 1. Key Debates

Working group and task force members engaged in vigorous debates during Phase II, a few of which are highlighted below along the decisions that ultimately emerged.

Scope of Measurement and Unintended Consequences: In formulating its recommendations, the task force faced the challenge of striking a delicate balance: how to communicate the importance of all seven learning domains presented in the Phase I framework, while also identifying just a small set of measures for tracking at the global level. Some members worried that pulling out just a few domains for global measurement might signal to policymakers and education systems that the other domains are less important. This

http://www.brookings.edu/about/centers/universal-education/learning-metrics-task-force/working-groupshttp://www.brookings.edu/blogs/up-front/posts/2013/02/18-universal-learning-winthrop

might in turn have the unintended consequence of limiting diversity in national curricula or driving donor funding toward narrow learning goals. In the end, the task force agreed that it was necessary to identify a small number of measures for tracking at the global level and selected six specific areas of measurement. To guard against unintended consequences, the task force proposed a new global measure that would track the breadth of learning opportunities young people received; namely, are children and youth being given the opportunity to learn across all seven learning domains? The task force also emphasized the need to operationalize the global areas of measurement while simultaneously helping to build measurement capacity at the national level.

International Comparability and Statistical Rigor: Assessments such as PIRLS, TIMSS and PISA are regarded as the gold standard for internationally comparable learning assessment. However, a country can spend up to $250,000 to participate, plus the costs to administer the tests, which can be substantially more. On the other hand, some national assessments have high levels of statistical rigor and provide information that is often more relevant to the individual country context. Task force members finally agreed that international comparability was important in some areas, such as reading comprehension and mathematics, but measuring learning using a common tool to compare progress over time, or equity in learning outcomes, could also be useful in tracking progress toward global goals.

Measuring Learning in School and Out of School: Some task force members argued it is pragmatic to focus measurement efforts in schools not only because it is economical, but also because the primary aim of large-scale assessments is to influence education policy and school systems. But other members were concerned that a continued focus on measuring learning within schools would lead to further exclusion of out-of-school children and youth. Still others pointed out that given current trends and the proliferation of learning technologies, learning might take place in a wider range of contexts in the future. The task force decided that access indicators (on enrollment and completion) should be paired closely with learning indicators to maintain a focus on getting children into school while also improving learning outcomes. Furthermore, the task force promotes a broad definition of schooling that allows for a range of intentional learning contexts (e.g., job-embedded learning, nonformal programs, distance learning), beyond the walls of the traditional school building.

Accounting for a Diversity of Contexts and Learning Levels: The task force recognized that while some (mostly high and upper-middle-income) countries participate in rigorous national and internationally comparable assessments, others have a very limited culture of evaluation and therefore limited information on how well their education systems are

functioning. Another challenge is how to account for existing learning levels in countries where a large proportion of learners would score below the lowest internationally benchmarked levels. There was general consensus among task force members that building on internationally comparable assessments was advisable in some contexts, but may not be a good fit for countries where vast numbers of children are unable to read in the language of the test. In these environments, additional tools would be necessary to capture all learning levels.

From the seven domains of learning and the 105 corresponding subdomains identified in Phase I, the task force and working group identified six areas of measurement that represent important learning opportunities for children and youth to enable them to be effective members of a globalized society, and which are feasible and desirable to be tracked a the global levelix: 1.) Access to and Completion of Learning Opportunities: Children and youth must access, and most importantly complete their education. This domain addresses the unfinished access agenda for out-of-school children and youth and emphasizes the importance of tracking completion, which currently is not done systematically. It also allows for a broad definition of schooling, including any intentional learning programs, whether formal, non-formal or virtual. Evidence shows that the skills and knowledge needed for global citizenship are rarely learned outside of intentional learning activities.

2.) Exposure to a Breadth of Learning Opportunities Across all Seven Domains: Children and youth should have a breadth of learning opportunities that, at a minimum, covers the seven learning domains. It is expected that an even broader set of competencies is necessary at the national and local levels; however, the task force recommends that the breadth of learning that education systems offer, at least across these seven domains, be tracked globally.

3.) Early Childhood Experiences that Result in Readiness for Primary School: The early childhood years are critical to later learning and development. Entry to primary school is a key milestone in a child's learning trajectory, and measuring school readiness can help drive improvements in preprimary education, health, family services, etc. Because of the varying rates at which young children develop, a holistic measure across multiple domains is the best way to capture learning at this stage. School readiness is broadly defined and typically includes aspects of learning related to at least five of the seven domains: physical well-being, social and emotional, literacy and communication, learning approaches and cognition, and numeracy and mathematics.

4.) The Ability to Read and Understand a Variety of Texts: Children and youth must be able to communicate in their mother tongue and in the primary language of instruction. Foundational reading skills necessary for learning to read are critical for functioning in modern society, in addition to the ability to comprehend and analyze complex texts through a variety of media. This domain encompasses both primary and lower secondary levels.

5.) The Ability to Use Numbers and Apply this Knowledge to Real-Life Situations: Children must be able to count and understand mathematical concepts both to make informed economic choices and to pursue advanced learning in such disciplines as science, engineering, economics, research, technology, etc. This domain also encompasses both the primary and lower secondary levels.

6.) An Adaptable, Flexible Skill Set to Meet the Demands of the 21st Century: Beyond literacy and numeracy, children and youth need a variety of skills across the seven learning domains to succeed in the 21st century. Administered in lower secondary, this domain of measurement might cover multiple competencies such as environmental awareness, collaborative problem solving, information communications technology digital literacy, and social responsibility.

Information for these areas of measurement would be collected using internationally comparable assessments in some cases, such as reading comprehension and mathematics, and using alternative assessments for others. Data collected against these areas of measurement should describe average achievement levels in addition to progress over time and equity across groups (girls/boys, urban/rural and wealth levels, at a minimum).

Phase III

The third and final working group on implementation, composed of 125 members from 40 countries, convened from March through August 2013. Among others, the Implementation Working Group sought to answer the following questions:

How governments can convene stakeholders to improve learning measurement across the seven learning domains?

What resources and financing would be needed to implement task force recommendations?

How to operationalize the two proposed areas of measurement for which there are currently no global measures (i.e., breadth of learning opportunities and 21st century knowledge and skills)?

The task force decided to promote a series of indicators for global tracking of learning, some of which are feasible in the short-term and some of which will need significant investment of time and resources to develop. They also agreed that a process is needed to support countries in diagnosing the quality of their assessment systems, convening stakeholders, and accessing the necessary technical and financial resources for improving learning measurement and outcomes.

Global Indicators for Learning: The six areas proposed in Phase II represent the task forces vision for how learning could be measured globally, understanding that significant improvements in assessment capacity would be needed in many countries before all six areas could be measured. Tracking of additional competencies should be determined at the national level.

The task force considered the indicators proposed by the working group for each of the six areas of measurement. Additionally, the task force discussed the working group recommendation to develop a Learning for All indicator, which would combine access, completion, and learning into one statistic. Of the indicators selected, the task force also discussed which ones are ready for use currently and which ones the education community could agree upon to develop in the short, medium, and long-term. The LMTF recommends a global process to define or refine instruments for (i) readiness to learn, (ii) values and skills for citizens of the world, and (iii) breadth of learning opportunities. Additional work is needed to refine existing instruments in the areas of (i) access, (ii) completion, (iii) a Learning for All indicator, (iv) reading, and (v) numeracy. Country-Level Actions: The Phase III consultation revealed the need for a framework to guide countries in implementing LMTF recommendations. Working group members and consultation participants identified an array of barriers and bottlenecks to assessing learning specific to each countrys current education system, capacity for assessment, and political economy surrounding education and assessment. For example, some countries have national assessment systems, some have state-developed and administered assessments (e.g. Kenya, Nigeria, India), and other countries have planned national assessments but have been unable to administer them due to lack of funding, technical capacity, or political will. Countries face a range of challenges in their political, cultural, and educational systems that affect their ability to measure and improve learning. For example, some countries are emerging from conflict; others have vast gender and income

inequalities; and still others (e.g. small island states) have education systems so small that large-scale assessment of learning is not currently technically and/or financially feasible.

While the actions needed to improve measurement and learning depend on the contextual factors in each country, consultation feedback revealed that all countries are struggling with measurement in some way. There is a demand from national governments and non-governmental stakeholders to improve learning outcomes, in part through minimizing the gap between what is currently assessed and the countrys vision for what children and youth should learn. The task force decided that as a next step it would be useful to develop a diagnostic tool to help countries assess their education measurement systems, and that existing tools such as SABER (World Bank) and the Data Quality Assessment Framework (IMF, adapted for use in education statistics by the UIS and World Bank) might inform such a diagnostic. The task force agreed to identify illustrative guiding questions that could be used in a country or region within country to self-assess its system of measurement so as to have an accurate starting point for improving a range of attributes, from the specificities of an assessment in a particular domain to the system as a whole. While the specific details on what it means for a country to implement LMTF recommendations remains to be determined, the task force decided on five principles for moving forward with interested countries, states, cities, and other parties:

1. The process should be country-driven, with a menu of options for country-level support.

2. Implementation should be carried out in collaboration with existing efforts by national, regional, and international organizations. In particular, regional collaborations should be leveraged to facilitate shared learning across the region and ensure recommendations are implemented in a culturally relevant way.

3. Interested countries should demonstrate commitment through political support and cost-sharing.

4. There should be multi-stakeholder collaboration, including through national communities of practice on assessment.

5. Any recommended products or services should be public goods, with tools, documentation, and data made freely available.x Quality assurance mechanisms should be in place to evaluate tools before they are shared.

Global-Level Actions: The Measures and Methods Working Group proposed a global mechanism, such as a multi-stakeholder advisory group to work to fill the global data

http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/TOPICS/EXTEDUCATION/0,,contentMDK:23150612~pagePK:148956~piPK:216618~theSitePK:282386,00.html

gap on learning in a way that both improves existing measurement capacity and increases the ability to track progress toward global indicators. The task force envisions three areas of worktechnical, institutional, and politicalthat require immediate focus and might eventually become core functions of a multi-stakeholder group. The task force agreed that the work of this group should support and strengthen existing actors when available and not duplicate efforts.

Technical: Additional work is needed to develop a shared set of tools and measures under the six areas of global measurement and the Learning for All indicator. A multi-stakeholder group would coordinate and keep partners accountable to the areas they have agreed to lead and continue an inclusive and transparent consultative process so that stakeholders remain engaged as instruments are developed. Country-level actors should be substantially involved in the technical work, both in the design and development as well as at the testing stage.

Institutional: A global body should support the processes at country and regional level for developing strong institutional capacity to implement task force recommendations. This includes providing feedback and guidance to countries on possible actions to improve assessment systems, sharing information on how to access technical expertise, guidance, and funding.

Political: To sustain the momentum and interest in measuring and improving learning gained over the course of the LMTF project, the multi-stakeholder group should continue to build political support at the global and national levels. At the global level, it should align with existing post-2015 processes and advocacy efforts, including the UN Secretary-Generals Global Education First Initiative (GEFI). The LMTF also has an opportunity to leverage its growing network of more than 1,700 stakeholders who have taken part in the task force, working groups, and consultations, and/or signed up to receive email updates, to build a grassroots global movement for improving learning.

Implications for the Post-2015 Agenda

The framing of education priorities as focused on access to equitable, quality education and learning across the life-cycle has been repeated in the three major reports of the post-2015 process released during the spring and summer of 2013: the U.N. High-Level Panels (HLP) report: New Global Partnership: Eradicate Poverty and Transform Economies through Sustainable Development; the executive summary from the World We Want education consultation: Envisioning Education in the Post-2015 Development Agenda; and the U.N. Sustainable Development Solutions Networks report: An Action Agenda for

http://www.post2015hlp.org/http://www.post2015hlp.org/http://www.post2015hlp.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/UN-Report.pdfhttp://www.post2015hlp.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/UN-Report.pdfhttp://www.worldwewant2015.org/education2015http://www.worldwewant2015.org/education2015http://unsdsn.org/http://unsdsn.org/files/2013/05/130507-Action-Agenda-for-SD-Draft-for-Public-Consultation1.pdf

Sustainable Development (See Table).

Box 4. Proposed Post-2015 Goals for the Education Sector Report Framing of an education goal High-Level Panel report Quality education and lifelong learning. Executive summary from the World We Want education consultation

Equitable, quality, lifelong education and learning for all.

Sustainable Development Solutions Network report

Effective learning for all children and youth for life and livelihood.

In addition, when the Open Working Group on Sustainable Development Goals met in June to discuss the issue of education, the discussion highlighted quality, lifelong learning and the development of vocational and transferable skills as key missing elements from the MDGs for the post-2015 framework. For instance, the G77 statement issued a specific call for learning outcomes: When developing SDGs, more attention needs to be placed on relevant and measurable learning outcomes.

This convergence of high-level post-2015 reports proposing an education goal focused on access plus learning is an exciting signal as to the paradigm shift from access to access plus learning, and the work of the Learning Metrics Task Force has certainly helped to make this paradigm shift a reality. Moreover, the HLP report underscores the importance of both data and measurement. Reflecting on the success and weaknesses of the MDGs, the HLP report argues that goals without quantitative targets and deadlines will fail to provide the motivation and accountability necessary for progress. The education community, through the work of the Learning Metrics Task Force, has spent the last eighteen months tackling these same challenges in order to determine how best to measure learning outcomes, with the ultimate goal being an improvement of quality education for all. The LMTF work has provided recommendations for countries at various levels of capacity so that governments and organizations can not only track how they are doing, but also target policy to address areas of need. The HLP report calls for exactly this type of data across all sectors by recommending that new goals be accompanied by an independent and rigorous monitoring system, with regular opportunities to report on progress and shortcomings at a high political level.

In addition to proposing an education goal focused on quality education and lifelong learning, the HLP report lists the following corresponding national targets for education:

increasing the proportion of children able to access and complete preprimary education;

http://www.worldwewant2015.org/education2015http://www.worldwewant2015.org/education2015http://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/index.php?menu=1636

ensuring that children can read, write and count well enough to meet minimum learning standards upon completion of primary education;

having access to lower secondary education and increasing the proportion of adolescents who achieve recognized and measurable learning outcomes; and

increasing the number of young and adult women and men with the skills, including technical and vocational, needed for work.

The challenge moving forward for the education community within the context of the post-2015 discussions will be to debate these targets, eventually agree to a set of targets and ultimately to refine them into indicators. Indeed, going into the summer of 2013, the feedback from those working on the post-2015 framework is that education (access plus learning) is a given in the post-2015 framework; now the education community needs to focus on the refinement of the what and focus in on the how. Once again, the Learning Metrics Task Forces recommendations can play an important part in this next phase of the post-2015 discussions.

While the task force has agreed that its recommendations are bigger and broader than the post-2015 discussions (and that the global education community should endeavor track the six areas to fill the global data gap on learning, regardless of how education and learning are incorporated into the next round of development goals), its recommendations are a significant contribution to the post-2015 discussions. Thus, as the post-2015 discussions shift to discussion about targets and indicators for tracking, the indicators that the task force has put forward for global tracking of learning by 2015 (learning for all, access and completion, reading and numeracy, as per Box 2 above) can inform the post-2015 debate and discussions. Moreover, as the task forces work to support countries in diagnosing the quality of their assessment systems, convening stakeholders, and accessing the necessary technical and financial resources for improving learning measurement and outcomes moves forward, the lessons learned from this work will be valuable to decision-makers working on the post-2015 agenda as well as Ministry of Education officials and partners preparing to make the paradigm shift from access to access plus learning within their own education systems. Learning Metrics Task Force Next Steps The task force agreed that it should not cease its activities in September 2013 as originally planned. Instead, the task force will continue, releasing the LMTF recommendations in September 2013 at the UN General Assembly in New York City and through regional/country-level launches. The purpose is to promote the importance of learning and build awareness of LMTF recommendations to a wide global audience. To discuss next steps and develop a plan for moving forward, the task force will meet in

person in Washington, DC, in November 2013, in conjunction with a World Bank meeting on assessment. As efforts focus more on implementation, the bulk of the work will be carried out by LMTF member organizations and other agencies that have the appropriate expertise, capacity, and experience.

In the meantime, LMTF members, partners and the Secretariat are working to ensure that the task force process and products are visible and understood by decision makers involved in post-2015 discussions. Through the development and dissemination of simple and brief policy briefs for high-level policy makers involved in the post-2015 process, the task forces recommendations will provide guidance for governments and negotiators as well as a road map of targets/indicators that are technically feasible at a global level for the post-2015 agenda and beyond.

i The Global Compact on Learning: Policy Guide, The Center for Universal Education, The Brookings Institution, 2011. ii UNESCO. Education for All Global Monitoring Report. UNESCO, 2012. iii Toward Universal Learning: What Every Child Should Learn, Learning Metrics Task Force, UNESCOs Institute for Statistics and the Brookings Institution, 2013. iv Global Compact on Learning: Policy Guide. v Thematic Think Piece: Education and Skills for inclusive and sustainable development beyond 2015, UN System Task Team on post-2015/UNESCO, 2012. See also: Beyond 2015: Education for the Future, UNESCO Bangkok, 2012.

vi Beyond 2015: Education for the Future, UNESCO Bangkok, 2012. vii Rebecca Winthrop, Mari Solivn and Kate Anderson Simons. The Learning Metrics Task Force Proposes Six Domains of Measurement for Global Tracking Post-2015, Brookings Blog, March 8, 2013. viiiToward Universal Learning: What Every Child Should Learn, Learning Metrics Task Force, UNESCOs Institute for Statistics and the Brookings Institution, 2013. ix Toward Universal Learning: A Global Framework for Measuring Learning, Learning Metrics Task Force, UNESCOs Institute for Statistics and the Brookings Institution, 2013. x Procedures should also be fully replicable by independent researchers. While the data should be publicly available, it should protect participants identities. The only exception to this principle applies to the

http://www.un.org/millenniumgoals/pdf/Think%20Pieces/4_education.pdf

safeguarding of instruments integrity; in this case, instruments can be kept in reserve and only exemplars be released publicly.